Why are climate deniers usually anti-immigrant?

[Jeffster]

  In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

1. That's why I disagree with people who say we need to constantly grow our population because it's the only way to have a healthy economy. Increased productivity, especially through automation, can give you a healthy economy so long as those gains aren't concentrated in just the top 1%

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

[Jeffster]

So we need to worry about paying for the retirements of the people in the green box (boomers), but not the people in the yellow box (millennials)?



Even though Millennials are having children at historically low birth rates, that are even starting to freak out some demograghers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/06/30/the-u-s-fertility-rate-just-hit-a-historic-low-why-some-demographers-are-freaking-out/?utm_term=.c1c26a1495c9

So it's not a short term thing, if we want to keep funding Social Security we will need to continue to bring in immigrants to make up for the low birth rate for the rest of the century. And I have to ask again, how is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable?

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it.  

What a load of crap. "Push it off onto future generations, it'll be their problem so long as I get mine." That's what you're saying. How is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable? If one of you guys will finally admit that it isn't, then which future generation will you burden with getting screwed over?

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it.  

What a load of crap. "Push it off onto future generations, it'll be their problem so long as I get mine." That's what you're saying. How is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable? If one of you guys will finally admit that it isn't, then which future generation will you burden with getting screwed over?

I don't know if this is an actual term, but I think you have a case of 'outrage bias.' 

I was referring to things like slowly raising the retirement age so as to both increase the number of people in the labor force, and, at the same time, decrease the number of people who are getting retirement benefits, or employ more 'robots.'  (In economics parlance, this is called substituting capital for labor.')

Since I have no way of knowing how artificial intelligence in the future will allow for producing wealth without employing people, I have no way of coming up with specific solutions to problems involved with people retiring.  So, that's why I didn't mention specific possible ideas in my previous post.  However, I certainly don't believe that it is the case that taking care of the costs of future retirees necessarily requires an ever increasing population.

So your solution is magic. You claim we need more people in the next 20-30 years to pay for retirees, but probably won't need them 60-80 years from now because of AI magic. The truth is that one future generation is going to be stuck without a chair when the music stops. They will have paid into the system their whole working life to take care of the older generation, but will have to suffer severe cutbacks on their own benefits when it is their time to retire. All you seem to care about is making sure the Boomers don't suffer any haircut on their benefits, but you don't care what happens to Millennials or any generation after that, that's for people of the future to worry about with their magic AI.

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it.  

What a load of crap. "Push it off onto future generations, it'll be their problem so long as I get mine." That's what you're saying. How is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable? If one of you guys will finally admit that it isn't, then which future generation will you burden with getting screwed over?

I don't know if this is an actual term, but I think you have a case of 'outrage bias.' 

I was referring to things like slowly raising the retirement age so as to both increase the number of people in the labor force, and, at the same time, decrease the number of people who are getting retirement benefits, or employ more 'robots.'  (In economics parlance, this is called substituting capital for labor.')

Since I have no way of knowing how artificial intelligence in the future will allow for producing wealth without employing people, I have no way of coming up with specific solutions to problems involved with people retiring.  So, that's why I didn't mention specific possible ideas in my previous post.  However, I certainly don't believe that it is the case that taking care of the costs of future retirees necessarily requires an ever increasing population.

So your solution is magic. You claim we need more people in the next 20-30 years to pay for retirees, but probably won't need them 60-80 years from now because of AI magic. The truth is that one future generation is going to be stuck without a chair when the music stops. They will have paid into the system their whole working life to take care of the older generation, but will have to suffer severe cutbacks on their own benefits when it is their time to retire. All you seem to care about is making sure the Boomers don't suffer any haircut on their benefits, but you don't care what happens to Millennials or any generation after that, that's for people of the future to worry about with their magic AI.

1.I don't think technology, whether AI or something else, is magic. Capital replacing labor has been going on since the dawn of time (though it picked up after the Industrial Revolution) and is one of the major drivers of increasing wealth.  

2.I also mentioned slowly raising the retirement age.  When social security started up in the United States for people 65 and over, the average life expectancy was 64.

You are seriously underestimating the drop off in the birth rate among younger people. Even if you raise the age of eligibility (which really means making those people contribute more into the system compared to past generations), the population of younger workers compared to the elderly will still be out of whack. Programs like Social Security require an expansive population pyramid to keep the system funded. So if we aren't going to replenish the base of the pyramid by increasing the birthrate, or by continually bringing in immigrants, then it means taxing the working age population at even higher amounts while reducing their future benefits.

Instead of beginning the transition away from such a system today, all I hear are suggestions to paper over the holes in the short term, and not to worry because science will save us in the future. That's magical thinking by you guys. You act as if there have never been long downturns or societal wide collapses in human history. So if you're wrong, then our future descendants are screwed, while if I'm wrong then the worst thing is some people were slightly inconvenienced in the short term so we could get ourselves into a more sustainable position for the long term.

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it.  

What a load of crap. "Push it off onto future generations, it'll be their problem so long as I get mine." That's what you're saying. How is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable? If one of you guys will finally admit that it isn't, then which future generation will you burden with getting screwed over?

I don't know if this is an actual term, but I think you have a case of 'outrage bias.' 

I was referring to things like slowly raising the retirement age so as to both increase the number of people in the labor force, and, at the same time, decrease the number of people who are getting retirement benefits, or employ more 'robots.'  (In economics parlance, this is called substituting capital for labor.')

Since I have no way of knowing how artificial intelligence in the future will allow for producing wealth without employing people, I have no way of coming up with specific solutions to problems involved with people retiring.  So, that's why I didn't mention specific possible ideas in my previous post.  However, I certainly don't believe that it is the case that taking care of the costs of future retirees necessarily requires an ever increasing population.

So your solution is magic. You claim we need more people in the next 20-30 years to pay for retirees, but probably won't need them 60-80 years from now because of AI magic. The truth is that one future generation is going to be stuck without a chair when the music stops. They will have paid into the system their whole working life to take care of the older generation, but will have to suffer severe cutbacks on their own benefits when it is their time to retire. All you seem to care about is making sure the Boomers don't suffer any haircut on their benefits, but you don't care what happens to Millennials or any generation after that, that's for people of the future to worry about with their magic AI.

1.I don't think technology, whether AI or something else, is magic. Capital replacing labor has been going on since the dawn of time (though it picked up after the Industrial Revolution) and is one of the major drivers of increasing wealth.  

2.I also mentioned slowly raising the retirement age.  When social security started up in the United States for people 65 and over, the average life expectancy was 64.

You are seriously underestimating the drop off in the birth rate among younger people. Even if you raise the age of eligibility (which really means making those people contribute more into the system compared to past generations), the population of younger workers compared to the elderly will still be out of whack. Programs like Social Security require an expansive population pyramid to keep the system funded. So if we aren't going to replenish the base of the pyramid by increasing the birthrate, or by continually bringing in immigrants, then it means taxing the working age population at even higher amounts while reducing their future benefits.

Instead of beginning the transition away from such a system today, all I hear are suggestions to paper over the holes in the short term, and not to worry because science will save us in the future. That's magical thinking by you guys. You act as if there have never been long downturns or societal wide collapses in human history. So if you're wrong, then our future descendants are screwed, while if I'm wrong then the worst thing is some people were slightly inconvenienced in the short term so we could get ourselves into a more sustainable position for the long term.

1.The numbers from the graph you provided don't show a large drop off but show a slight drop off with total population in the cohorts being somewhere in the 18-20 million range.

2."(which really means making those people contribute more into the system compared to past generations)"  True, but equally they're also living longer so they also receive more from it.

1. The bottom of the graph are mostly children born to the youngest members of Gen-X and the oldest Millennials. The birth rate of Millennials in the 20-29 age range have dropped massively compared to past generations. So when they finally do have children, they will have fewer, and those children are at an increased risk of mental disorders. The Millennials are the biggest generation since the Boomers, so under normal conditions the number of children they have should show a similar baby boom on the graph. If that pyramid doesn't turn outward again as we reach the end of Generation Z births and the start of the generation that comes after, then we'll be stuck with an upside down pyramid going forward.

2. The longer they live the bigger the population beneath them that will be required to support the system, unless you plan on making them work until they are close to death. Just how much of their life will they be required to pay into the system before collecting?