World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Overpopulation and world's capacity
By 2080, if current estimates are correct and if we haven't done something about climate change the seal level rise will make a lot of agricultural land unusable, massive redistribution of people will have to occur, so there will be a whole lot of troubles going on at the same time. I tend to think the aging population will not be such a problem because AI will take up a lot of the work so the supply of younger people will be adequate. But other resources, I think, might be in trouble.
Europe and China both are going to have demographic problems sooner than 2080. China is now the world fastest aging population. Europe is aging and not coming close to replacement numbers. Russian population is shrinking. Within 30 years you will see the world start to shrink.
Good for the planet. Not so good for people. Pretty depressing overall. Glad I won't be around to see it.
Yep, still growing and maybe we can still congratulate the newcomers, however if and when we cross 10B, it might become a little tense in some places..
There are allegedly current food shortages in some places, and environmental difficulties. Maybe that is a sign that 8 b reaches a stress point.
Ian wrote: "There are allegedly current food shortages in some places, and environmental difficulties. Maybe that is a sign that 8 b reaches a stress point."I would bet it is mostly politics...
Politics are everywhere, but the effects of climate change are real
That population growth is not spread evenly. This has led and will continue to lead to devastating issues. For instance the ongoing population decline in the former Soviet Union.https://youtu.be/f1WFrsz4g14
Population decline can only be good for the planet, but bad for economics.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/bey..."In short, the labor force participation rate of the late 2020s is projected to be about 59 percent, a rate not seen since the 1950s and 1960s, before women began to enter the labor force in increasing numbers."
This was written in 2018 based on statistics through 2016. I wonder how much it will have changed with the affects of the pandemic, including all of those who end up taking early retirement and the rate of death from covid.
https://coldstreams.com/2022/08/15/po...
I haven't read the whole series, but this writer seems to be pretty level-headed and makes excellent points about the baby boomer generation and the resultant labor shortage that has now started earlier than expected.
An aging population does impact the work force, but what you didn't mention from the article is that “More recent generations of men are participating less than their predecessors did. Especially affected are men with a high school education or less and black men." We have a potential work force that refuses to work for wages offered. How can they refuse to work? Our government is giving them handouts equal to or greater than what they can earn working. A solution would be to require work for government benefits.
Scout wrote: "An aging population does impact the work force, but what you didn't mention from the article is that “More recent generations of men are participating less than their predecessors did. Especially a..."The reason they are not working? I believe the articles mentioned that there is less demand for those with only a high school diploma.
"More recent generations of men are participating less than their predecessors did,” say the authors. Especially affected, they note, are men with a high school education or less and black men. But why are these later generations of men participating less? The answer is complicated, but one clear factor is the increasing wage gap between high- and low-skilled workers. For example, in 1973, men with a high school education earned 72 percent of the wages of men with a college degree; by 2016, the percentage was down to 51 percent. Clearly, the demand for high-school-educated men had fallen considerably, likely diminishing their participation in the labor force."
My point thought was just to add to the discussion of population decline and the affect it will have on our workforce and economy.
Personally, I don't want to do my job and get paid 51% of what the woman next door is receiving simply because she has a bachelors and I don't, even though we are doing the same job. I started experiencing that in the late 90s.
Lizzie wrote: "https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2018/bey..."In short, the labor force participation rate of the late 2020s is projected to b..."
Now you understand what I am talking about when I mention demographics. This stuff matters. There are a couple of really good people to read and listen.
Scout wrote: "An aging population does impact the work force, but what you didn't mention from the article is that “More recent generations of men are participating less than their predecessors did. Especially a..."You are partially correct about government money, but also many have cut back on their expenses and that drastically reduces the burden. What is really interesting to me is that employers cannot get people to work for the wages they want to pay. For the first time in about 50 years, labor has the upper hand and I do not think they are going to be able to push them any time soon.
The big question for me, and no one is answering it: Everyone seems to be fine with the idea that people are choosing not to work, but no one questions how people are able quit working and still pay their bills, feed themselves, drive a car, have a place to live. If they were in dire straits, people would choose to work. But they're not in dire straits: they seem to be doing fine without working. Can someone please make sense of this for me?
Somehow they can afford not to pick any lousy job. As I watch the graph, I doubt they are all on dole: https://www.statista.com/statistics/2...Maybe they rob banks, sail pirate ships, or wait for merchant caravans (or delivery drones) in the woods? :)
Or maybe they've moved home with their parents and are living in the basement playing video games. That's probably true for many. But for the others, you would think that people who refuse to work would become homeless. Maybe they've turned to crime, or maybe they're getting so many government benefits that they have more income than they would if they worked. A single mother with 2 children in Georgia gets $750 in cash, $2,495 in Food Stamps, free housing and free medical care. That's about $4550 a month, much more than a person can make from a minimum wage job.
Scout wrote: "....A single mother with 2 children in Georgia gets $750 in cash, $2,495 in Food Stamps, free housing and free medical care. That's about $4550 a month, much more than a person can make from a minimum wage job. ..."Would you rather put her in McDonalds?
There is a great argument for the dignity of work. For the record, I worked many lousy paying jobs for plenty of years. Whether one thinks it is a good idea or not, there are plenty of skills learned at the low paying jobs that will not be learned by not working at all.
If working something not sophisticated such a person loses some of the benefits, mentioned by Scout, it doesn't make sense for a person to work. We might want that person and especially 2 kids to be able to live and also to encourage her/him to work. Maybe a benefit can be different - like a state topping a dollar on every dollar earned? It should be an axiom that work should avail normal (not luxurious) living - we can argue whether it includes aircon or not; and that's why in some places minimal wage is pegged to a cost of subsistence . If this equation doesn't work, makes little sense engaging in something that doesn't even let you keep your head above the water.
Nik wrote: "If working something not sophisticated such a person loses some of the benefits, mentioned by Scout, it doesn't make sense for a person to work. We might want that person and especially 2 kids to b..."There are programs help supplement people on low scale jobs. Nobody should be receiving benefits that can work other than for short periods due to situations beyond control.
Would I rather put her in McDonald's, Nik? That would be okay with me, instead of her not working at all and living off the taxes paid by people who do work. I'd add that Welfare should require work and then add to that income enough to support her and her children. But sitting on her butt while others work to support her doesn't sit well with me.
Scout wrote: "Would I rather put her in McDonald's, Nik? That would be okay with me, instead of her not working at all and living off the taxes paid by people who do work. I'd add that Welfare should require wor..."The question then is whether she could afford paying kindergartens, rent and all from working in McDonalds.
No, the question is how do we shield the innocent from the poor decisions of their progenitors without rewarding said "parents" for those decisions.
Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "Would I rather put her in McDonald's, Nik? That would be okay with me, instead of her not working at all and living off the taxes paid by people who do work. I'd add that Welfare shou..."The actual question is how to get people to work and then move up. The low paying jobs are starter jobs and not ending jobs. BTW, school is free in the United States.
My view is the benefit should be reduced gradually as income increases, so there is always a clear benefit to going to work, so that if you want more than the bare minimum for survival, you are encouraged to work.Part of the problem here at least is too many children drop out of school far too soon. Truancy is a serious problem, and it is the ex-truants that are on the bottom of the social ladder. Invariably, anyone who has attended reasonably at school ends up with a job, apart possibly from minor intermissions when companies retrench or go bust, but the people with any skill invariably soon gets a job.
I agree. School is free here, and so is housing for low income workers, as are food stamps. I said that income should be supplemented by government programs, but that people receiving government benefits should have to work for them, not be idle while others work to support them. What's wrong with that, Nik?
Scout wrote: "....What's wrong with that, Nik?..."Is kindergarten/nanny free? Nothing is necessarily wrong. You say she gets circa 4.5K (housing, food stamps) not working. We should assume that her 2 kids that aren't guilty of anything are well looked after and fed.
If say she works somewhere and earns 3K, while needs to pay kindergarten/nanny + rent + food more than she earns, it wouldn't make sense.
If a state/municipality/government would add 3k to her wages, thus spending less than 4.5K they spend now, while she would net 1.5K more (3K + 3K, instead of 4.5K), it'll make economic sense.
It's not even about her - it's more about the kids who cannot take care for themselves while we as a society still want to give them a chance in life.
I think it is also about the work force in America, those on the lower rungs of the ladder, get lousy (if any) benefits. How much better off my kids would be as adults if I could have afforded regular dental care. How much better off I would be now if I could have afforded real medical and dental care. I fought with every employer just to get any medical insurance and was relieved when the ACA went through. In AZ and WI, having any income over the federal povertly level precluded me from any state aid, including medical and dental for my kids. When what you make goes to taxes, day care, maintaining a vehicle, proper clothing/uniforms, etc. and you don't have enough left to pay rent and eat, I understand why people are on the "dole" and not working.
Sounds like I should have moved to Georgia. Each of the states have their own rules about all of benefits when unemployed and AZ doesn't pay enough to compensate for me not working.
Nik wrote: "Scout wrote: "....What's wrong with that, Nik?..."Is kindergarten/nanny free? Nothing is necessarily wrong. You say she gets circa 4.5K (housing, food stamps) not working. We should assume that h..."
You ask good and fair questions. Yes kindergarten is free. Nannies are not. You make great valid points about the children. However, how do you take care of the children and not benefit a lazy parent? It is certainly not going to be solved here or now, but it does show some of the complications.
I personally do not understand the problem with dentistry in the United States. It never seems to be covered and it is vital.
At the same time, I boot strapped it and made my life. Everything I have I earned.
So here is the question I have for you, how much is enough? At what point do we say it is good enough? At what point do we say no further, you have to earn it?
You mention taking care of children and I believe we can all agree. But agree to what level? Good educations, healthy foods, healthcare seem pretty reasonable. How about fancy sneakers or air conditioning?
Papaphilly wrote: "Good educations, healthy foods, healthcare seem pretty reasonable. How about fancy sneakers or air conditioning?"No to fancy sneakers. Having lived in a poor town outside of a miitary town and coached kids summer sports program, the kids whose parents were getting state or federal aid, or even help from a local organization, were embarrassed by it. I think their sneakers and coat and school supplies should be average, so as not to make them stand out, similar to what the average working, lower middle class family will send their kids to school in.
Yes to a/c (and heat). Despite being considered temperate, AZ has cold nights and too many high temp days to not have those things as basic needs. A house without a/c in a month of 100 degree days is not conducive to health or learning. The need for that really does depend on where you live and how well built the house/apartment is.
Everything I have I too earned. I don't believe others should suffer and have to do it that way just because I did.
The few months I was on food stamps (SNAP) until SSDI (disability pay) kicked in was not pleasant. $194 for a month, Being physically unable to cut fresh fruit and veggies, I had to buy the more expensive precut stuff. People looked at me like I was less. People muttered when they saw me get into a Miata. At moments, I wanted to scream at them that the car was paid for and 10 years old. Dealing with that as an adult is hard enough; I don't wish for any child to feel that way.
Lizzie wrote: "Dealing with that as an adult is hard enough; I don't wish for any child to feel that way. ..."You do not worry what these poor kids will face when they do not have the latest fashions? I am only being half facetious. I have seen first hand the nastiness when one has something they earned and another that wants it, but not work for it.
Back when computers were very expensive and an enormous hard drive was 12 gigs, I bought one. It took me a year to save up and buy it. I sacrificed for that computer. One of the benefits was my child could do his homework on it. It made his life a little easier. One day a woman approached me as I was waiting for him outside of school and asked if I was Papaphilly and was the father of my son. I replied yes. She then said it was not fair. I asked her what was she talking about. She replied that my son did his homework on the computer and her son did not. Now I am mystified. She then told me again it was not fair he did his homework on the computer and her son did not. I asked her why was that unfair and her reply was she could not afford one. I then told her two things, one I could explain how she could get one and two, I sacrificed for that computer and he gets the benefit. She asked how she could get a computer and I looked at her and holding lottery tickets and smoking. I told her to quit buying lottery tickets, stop smoking and the money will add up fast. By sacrificing a little, she could get her kid a computer. The conversation went downhill fast and how dare I.
I use this example of priorities. If people can afford cigarettes, beer and lottery tickets, they can afford the necessities. I keep hearing about the children and keep seeing the parents not doing what needs to be done.
Your answer on the clothes is spot on, but what about computers, I-phones (smartphones), Internet, cable and all the other accoutrements of life?
I asked about air conditioning for a reason. I have little doubt that Arizona needs it. However, in NJ it is not a life safety issue. Yet I have heard plenty scream how they need their air conditioning and it is a human right. I did not grow up air conditioning and did not even have it in a car until I turned 32. It was miserable, but we lived. since when did it become a civil right and why not earn one? I am not talking about the infirmed, but the healthy ones that do not want to work or have thousands or reasons for why they cannot.
So once again, at what point do we support these kids and to what level?
Papaphilly wrote: "...However, how do you take care of the children and not benefit a lazy parent?..."The prime target is to help the kids, while not benefiting a lazy parent (and I agree with you that it shouldn't) is secondary. Yes, there are might be occasional abuse, but we are talking about maybe a small portion of the aid, which I personally find tolerable, as long as the kids are taken care of.
Yet, it's possible to encourage work through adding government help over and in addition to earned wages.
Tight supervision is a must in every government spending, it's just everyone looks at welfare and kicks those that apply for it, while no one asks, why we give grants to biz https://www.uschamber.com/co/run/busi... and how much of them are misused by a proprietor, how much money is siphoned away from taxation under taxation loopholes (some/(many?) created on purpose by lobbyists), are bail offs for big biz appropriate, how many trillions are stolen in state procurement without tender bidding, etc... I bet times more of taxpayers money is stolen there. To me kids and even a lazy mom/dad are far more tolerable than billionaires enjoying business welfare. That's where I'd look much more closely.
Papaphilly wrote: "...how much is enough?..."
Nothing fancy or expensive. Circa - subsistence, yet dignified. Bread, butter, milk, meat, a cheap beer (maybe not for kids), but not caviar and exotic delights :)
Papaphilly wrote: "Lizzie wrote: "Dealing with that as an adult is hard enough; I don't wish for any child to feel that way. ..."You do not worry what these poor kids will face when they do not have the latest fash..."
In today's world it is very difficult to get a job for an adult without a cell phone or for kids to do their schoolwork without a computer and internet access. Technology and education go hand in hand and the adult and kids need to know how to use it for everthing from job searches, research, and lessons to coding. I know my daughter's classes the last 5 years have all been supplied with computers, the same way a school would provide a textbook.
I remember savimg for the 1st computer in our home when my daughter was a teen. 20 meg hard drive; 4 RAM, dial up internet. IN 1998/99 that was something like $2,700 including a printer for everything needed and a printer.
In general, I find lots of people who don't know how to save. You say you can't afford a dentist? But, you are eating out and drinking almost every night. Makes no sense to me.
I think what we struggle with is what is reasonble and what is the result of your own choices that you continue to make. The ones who are trying to do better are punished because of those who refuse to make reasonable efforts. Then again, my reasonable and yours may not be all that close - who knows.
I do agree with Nik. More of our tax dollars are lost to bailing out businesses than to welfare recipients.
The government bailing out businesses, and the government welfare programs - apples and oranges. One deals with corporations, the other deals with individuals. I also worked and sacrificed to give my kid what he needed. No one handed me anything, although I needed help. I just did what it took, and went without what I didn't need. When people who don't work get free housing, free food, free medical care - and lately get free internet, free phones, free phone service - all paid for by tax dollars from working people, I have an issue with that. In return for that support, they should have to work. The only exceptions should be for single mothers with children who can't attend free kindergarten or school. Everyone else should work if they get government benefits. The food stamp benefit for a single mother with 2 children in my state is $2400 a month, $600 a week for groceries. Really? Who needs that for groceries? That's more than the total weekly income for many working people who pay taxes. Add to that all the other govt benefits, and I ask, how is that fair to people who work?
I think we are pretty much in agreement that anyone capable should procure for him/herself (we have a big issue here why we pay those who study in the seminary), while those who can't like - invalids deserve a helping hand. Despite hard years in my past, including sleeping on the beach for some time and having nothing to eat in between jobs, I don't wish anyone needing to overcome hardships just because I did. A state collects taxes anyway and spends them all. Much of it gets stolen in the process. I just believe corporate welfare and inflated state procurement is a much bigger problem than an occasional abuse of social welfare. I still remember those bosses from automotive industry coming to ask for a bailout, but shamelessly no one of them was ready to give up on a private jet. Giving out food stamps way beyond reasonably needed sounds not right. Is there ways for machinations with those, like selling them or otherwise trading for something?
I think we have to define what is wastage. My personal view is either you have outrageous prices in the US (hardly likely because in winter we import US stone fruit and they are every bit as cheap as ours are in summer) or $600 a week for groceries is over the top.I do not want people sleeping rough. Nik might have, but that did nobody any good. I think the state should help those whose luck simply ran out, but it should also encourage them to find work, and rather than cutting the benefit completely it should simply attenuate it so the person is always better off working. However, I disagree that once a person has a work ethic that low paid jobs do anything for him other than provide small amounts of cash and give him something to do. I am in favour of the person being helped to get into better paying jobs.
The real wastage in government spending, in my opinion, comes from a bloated bureaucracy - do we really need so many people sending memos to each other? - and also from bureaucrats feeling they have to do something to justify their existence, so off they go and do something without anyone checking to see whether it is actually necessary. Politicians are quite happy to authorize spending, but then somehow nobody checks to see it is well-spent.
I recall once I had a small government contract, and I had to present a case to continue it. I made my main selling point that I had made the job being done far more cost-efficient - I could get the same output for an order of magnitude less cost than what was normal before I started. Of course, sometimes you can't do anything like that and I had a particularly suitable project, but the result floored me. When I had finished the presentation they informed they were not interested in cost-efficiency. They did not renew the project because it did not fit in with other political things, like helping Maori.
Nik wrote: "Giving out food stamps way beyond reasonably needed sounds not right. Is there ways for machinations with those, like selling them or otherwise trading for something?.."There are two points here, One: there is always fraud, but not nearly as much as in the past. Everything is electronic with cards and not so much paper. You can still game the system if you have a willing seller and that will always happen.
Two: Much of this is racial/ethnic. I always ask anyone I talk too to picture a welfare recipient. Invariably it is a female of color. when I ask them to picture a welfare queen it is always a female of color and mostly black. For better or worse this is the way it is. Now, by far the most far an away welfare recipients are white. It is not close either. It is about shear numbers, not population percentages. So this gets turned into politics as always. When it gets brought up, racial charges follow and it freezes the conversation. Which is the point to start.
I originally asked what is enough. That remains undefined. On one hand there are those of us that did not need/take welfare or other help and on the other hand there are those of us that needed/took welfare or other help. Who is right? Depends on who you ask. We seem to agree that people that are "sick" or infirmed need help. We seem to agree that no one should have to live on the streets. We seem to agree children need help. Yet, how do you help them and not their lazy parents? That is the rub, especially with those of us that did it the hard way.
At the same time, do you "reward" for bad decisions? Someone that keeps having children out of wedlock should be given more money? Really? Yet, if we do not, are we punishing children that had no say in the decision?
Papaphilly raises excellent questions. The problem now is to find reasonable answers.
Papaphilly wrote: "....We seem to agree children need help. Yet, how do you help them and not their lazy parents? ..."Not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's just that's the favorite complaint of the paying parent about child support :) I guess there would be "dual use" expenses - like paying an electricity bill for the apartment and maybe an occasional misuse, however if the total amount is reasonable for the purpose it's designed to achieve, we can't really put a comptroller supervising every expense..
The problem might not as much be overpopulation but where the population is concentrated. I read somewhere that one of the western states (I think it was Wyoming) had a smaller population than NYC.Population shifts when people who have the desire to leave for better jobs, safer communities, closer to services also have the ability to leave. You see how many people from the Northeast who don't want to deal with the issues in the NY, NJ, PA area are moving South, and how many people are leaving LA and NYC.
Right now, the three things which dictate how large of a population a nation can support are Nitrates, Phosphates, and Potash. Those are the three numbers on every bag of fertilizer.Nitrogen is processed out of the atmosphere. It is plentiful, but getting it is a heavy industrial process. The leading suppliers were Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. If you don't have a facility built and ready to come on line, then you have a problem.
Phosphorus is mined. The leading producers are China, Morocco, USA, Russia, and Jordan. You'll notice that one of the top five has been removed from the global market. If you're not on that list, then you have a problem.
Potash can be produced by soaking wood ashes in water, but it is mostly mined. The top five producers are Canada, Russia, Belarus, China, and Germany. The USA is number nine and we have standing contracts with Canada. Once again, you'll notice a major producer which is now segregated from the market.
So how big of a problem do you have?
I suspect will have a problem similar to NZ: not a problem yet, but it will be. Our nitrogen fertilizer is mainly urea which we make, we get phosphates from Morrocco, but I have no idea where we get potash from.
Nik wrote: "Prophets are rare breed -:)"YOU RAHHNG......?
Automation of infrastructure precludes. When people have their needs and at least some (of each person's) wants met, people treat the world well.
Further reading:
''In a society where material scarcity is unknown and the only real value is sentimental value, there is little motive or opportunity for the sort of action we would class as a crime against property.''
https://genius.com/Iain-m-banks-a-few...
For those whom prefer text Against a Dark Background! https://theculture.adactio.com/
Culture Citizen wrote: "....''In a society where material scarcity is unknown and the only real value is sentimental value, there is little motive or opportunity for the sort of action we would class as a crime against property.''..."We might be living in the age of abundance, where artificial wants are hyperinflated to create constant craving for more and newer
((quote at bottom)) Nature has provided abundance. Humans at large have an inclination to use resources in a Natural manner...and have an inclination to goggle at and get de-railed by spectacle. Now Nature, through the environment, pushes Humanity back into the fold.Or as a Black comedian might say: you n---as thought you could get along wi'out meh? Hah! ((came to mind after and couldn't resist))
Nik wrote: "Culture Citizen wrote: "....''In a society where material scarcity is unknown and the only real value is sentimental value, there is little motive or opportunity for the sort of action we would cla..."
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
The Children of Men (other topics)Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Viennese Candidate (other topics)
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/... . Europe's population shrinks, while population of 61 countries is expected to decrease by at least 1% till 2050. Just 8 countries are expected to contribute more than a half of global growth. By 2080 the population is expected to peak and remain roughly the same till 2100.
If anything, to me it shows a drastically different picture by groups of countries. While a small number of countries will be occupied by overgrowth, starvation and poverty, many countries would cope with low fertility, aging population, lack of work force and contribution to pension programs to support the elderly, and as a result maybe growing starvation and poverty too.
What do you think?