Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Biogen (BIIB)
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is certainly a macroeconomic trend, and I suspect the economic (& stock market) consequences will be huge. It won't begin to really hit for a few decades yet:
Link to NYTimes article on the coming population collapse:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/18/opi...Cheers,
Stopped Clock
No. of Recommendations: 5
This is certainly a macroeconomic trend, and I suspect the economic (& stock market) consequences will be huge. It won't begin to really hit for a few decades yet:
It will probably cause economic disruptions, but overpopulation creates its own set of problems. Long term fewer people may be a good thing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Long term fewer people may be a good thing.
Probably true but the "leveling off" phase might be quite painful. Less people to support the aging, whether support through social security or just assistance in hospitals, hospice, assisted living, etc. Also there will be less workers to do most everything as the population decline whether constructions, auto, etc. since the new hires won't match the retirees.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Less people to support the aging...
This is the devil's bargain we've made.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Less people to support the aging..."
When we wonder about the use of other people, is it ethical to advocate for more people so they can take care of us?
Sort of like farm raising animals, yes?
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Sort of like farm raising animals, yes?"
Only if you eat them...
No. of Recommendations: 4
is it ethical to advocate for more people so they can take care of us?
Parents demanding daughter or daughter-in-law being baby factories so parents can be grandparents?
Seriously, though, through most of human history, family has taken care of family across generations. There were a few exceptions, like some societies would put those so old they could no longer contribute to survival of the group, but were net drains on group survival, out on ice flows to die. Those were rare.
Taking care of family across generations: parents lived with their children, including when those children had their own children still growing up, or those (grand)parents lived very nearby. That had value for the younger generations, too, as the old folks could pass their experiences and wisdom on to the grandkids. In that environment, Social Security, to get more specific, was set up in its original form to supplement that family support, not to financially replace it. At that time, too, there were roughly 7 workers for every retiree, and retirees, once retired had a life expectancy of roughly 7-10 years. Social Security today has transformed into what's intended to be financial replacement of that family support, however meager that replacement income might be; there are 2-3 workers for every retiree; and a retiree's life expectancy in retirement has lengthened to more than 15 years. On top of that, today's retiree no longer lives close by family nearly as much.
Adding to that is Social Security's core structure, unchanged since its inception: the revenue from Social Security taxes is paid out immediately to current retirees wholly unrelated to the taxpayer's family. With no skin in the game--those taxes set aside for the payer's own future retirement--there's little incentive for the taxpayer to save for his own retirement, a situation exacerbated by the erstwhile economic environment of employers setting aside money for an employee's future retirement in the form of a defined benefit pension. Somebody else would always provide for the one's retirement.
The falling ratio of workers:retirees has led to Social Security tax revenue no longer being enough to keep the basic funding--the Social Security Trust Fund from which those payouts are made--fully funded. When it's drained, the payouts can only come from the revenue stream, and that will lead, at today's rates, to a roughly 25% drop in monthly payout size.
Absent an increase in birth rate, the only source for more workers is entry by legal immigrants--which we've always welcomed (colored by bigotry related to this or that disapproved group of the day). Welcoming immigrants (as opposed to illegal aliens) has always been good for our economy; their "utility" as sources of support for retirees as a class is only a side effect of their overall contribution to our economy and our nation.
Eric Hines
No. of Recommendations: 16
I probably shouldn’t have replied to this post because it’s a big subject. ometimes, too heavy for me. But since I did, and to respect those who thought about it and responded, I’ll complete my thoughts. I responded to remind people that there are two sides to that coin.
How one speaks of the idea of raising or importing people into a country for work depends upon one’s position in that arrangement. No one gets to choose which side of that coin you are on. As Buffett, says, it’s a womb lottery. Since i was born on the wrong side of that coin, my own experience makes me sensitive tot he other side. It was not so harsh that I wasn’t able to eventually escape that position, but it was very difficult and cost me a lot. Some around me did not make it out alive. Being at the bottom of the economic barrel has consequences beyond the financial. Rarely do those who are on the benefitting side of things consider the totality of those on the other side. So, often the rules are set up to completely ignore the humanity, or in the case of animals, the sentient experience of those beings—they are stripped of their feelings and are often ignored as sentient beings, no different than a hammer or a nail.
I was responding to the one-dimensional phrasing that implies that people are of economic or personal “use” to “us.” That conceptual distance, defining other People, by their utility, can be dehumanizing. That “distance” is responsible for poor long-term decisions about society, and even within families. Part of humanity’s evolution to higher consciousness, I hope, is to come up with different ways to conceptualize these other people so they are not defined merely in terms of their utility to us.
I don’t know if it’s possible for humans to evolve much in that way. I only see a small part of reality. But, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded of things like that in a discussion about business and “workers,” or food, for that matter. Perhaps a bit more kindness and respect will be slipped into our thoughts and better ideas will come of it.
“Those” people are evolving, too. But for the grace… Sometimes, what goes around comes around. Life is complicated. Good to keep that in mind, I think.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Language does, indeed, heavily influence how we think.
For instance, there is a broad difference between "importing" people into a country vs allowing people to enter a country (in this context to live permanently, whether as citizens or as resident aliens) vs encouraging people to enter a country. Very few nations actively try to import people, and it's with the meaning you suggest as one possibility for "importing:" to be workers for the state. Nazi Germany did that with its Anschluss and Russia is doing that, in part, with its invasion of Ukraine.
Most nations allow people to come in within a specified set of rules, or actively block their entry virtually in toto--notably many of the EU's member nations. Some of those blocks are set along racist lines, some of them along national origin lines, some of them set along whether they'll be burdens on the economies or cultures or people already present. Some of the blocks are because the receiving nation (or the men and women of its government) don't think the nation can absorb anymore without deleterious impact on its economy or people or culture. That last is especially a problem when those who enter refuse to assimilate into the receiving nation's culture, and that cascades deleteriously onto the people and economy--to the detriment, also, of the newly arrived aliens.
Many nations actively encourage people to enter, also within rules, rules that are at least nominally intended to protect the receiving nation's culture, economy, people. Those first two, at least, are the very reason so many aliens seek to enter the encouraging nation. On the other hand, aliens' refusal to assimilate affects negatively the culture and economy, and so defeats the purpose of their coming in the first place. Flooding the receiving nation also can negatively affect the receiving nation's culture and economy by overwhelming the means of absorption, which also defeats their purpose in coming. Entering a nation illegally is especially counterproductive when that occurs in a flood.
When legal entry is done into those nations who encourage entry and is done, particularly, within the welcoming nation's rules, their entry benefits the nation as a whole as much as it does those legal entrants, but again: welcoming aliens is not the same as importing them. And, specifying entry rules based on what the alien can contribute to the receiving nation rather than how much of a burden he'll be is necessary to protect the very characteristics of the receiving nation that brought the alien to it in the first place. That's not a matter of dehumanizing the alien; it's a matter of protecting the receiving nation so that it can continue to be the sort of nation that has become that prosperous and free--and which benefits current entering aliens and future entrants.
Eric Hines
No. of Recommendations: 4
Eric,
Yes, immigration is a sticky problem. As I mentioned, people evolve, and devolve, both upwards and downwards, sideways and sometimes not all...
People need to move, and societies need "rules." Unfortunately, biology doesn't necessarily conform to political rules or national boundaries. What worked 200 years ago, won't necessarily work now, when the numbers of people, both citizens and immigrants to a country have multiplied.
According to encyclopedia.com, "The standard current estimate is that approximately 2,500,000 people lived in the thirteen colonies in 1775 (excluding Indians), of whom 460,000 were slaves."
Worldometer says, United States Population (2024) - "The current population of the United States of America is 340,990,003 as of Wednesday, January 17, 2024, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data 1."
So, say, a 136.4 fold increase. However, the world's landmass and oceans have remained the same. Whatever bounty our forefather's and mother's enjoyed has been halved and halved many times over. The competition is through the roof. And that's just for the United States. Our success as a nation is a natural magnet for those in need. So, what kind of measures do we takes to "protect" our borders against biology, and the consequences of unchecked and unmanaged population and the diminishment of resources caused by such unmanaged biological processes?
If politicians and our citizens only think in terms of rules and regulations to control immigrants, what are the odds of success? It seems to me, the discussion and solution must be much broader and found in other places than "control." Perhaps education, philosophy, cooperation and personal responsibility in ways our society as a whole have not entertained before need to be seriously considered. Seeing ourselves as not just citizens of a particular country, but those of the finite earth, might help make our lives more livable in the long run, and immigration may need to be seen more holistically.
The subject of birth control has now become almost taboo in this country, at least for one entire political party. If that's true, how can any political solution be worked out if whole areas of discussion and philosophical thought is precluded, even outlawed??? That's just one subject area that prevents any real workable solutions. What our philosophies are does absolutely limit or broaden our ability to see reality as it is and live in grace in what is real. Our human minds can only approach the great reality with reverence and humility. Respect for our limitations, others and our home, requires open minds and respect for a common good. When that is the ethos, better solutions I think will follow. It's a big order, but the concepts of respect and cooperation need to be a basis for solutions. Then, everyone will feel that they have a seat at the table and are being heard, because they will be.
No. of Recommendations: 2
A few thoughts in response:
Whatever bounty our forefather's and mother's enjoyed has been halved and halved many times over.
Only in terms of landmass. Resources available have exploded in a nation like the United States, and could do so in a nation like Russia and many of those in Africa. Technology has made those resources available, and some political systems and cultures have made development of those resources cheap and relatively straightforward, and have made development of new technologies itself a burgeoning industry. Other political systems, especially, but other cultures, also, don't do nearly as well.
If politicians and our citizens only think in terms of rules and regulations to control immigrants ... the discussion and solution must be much broader and found in other places than "control." and Our success as a nation is a natural magnet for those in need. So, what kind of measures do we takes to "protect" our borders against biology
Controls not against biology, but against culture. At bottom, no one and no group has an intrinsic right to enter another nation without that nation's prior permission, and no nation has an intrinsic obligation to grant permission. The nation-state with its borders is what allows the several peoples with their several cultures to do what they think is appropriate for them, at least nominally free from interference from other peoples--especially in Western Civilization, where individual liberty is a key aspect.
Were up to me, I'd build a "big, beautiful wall" along the length of our southern border and penetrate it with border/entry control stations every mile. Raise/eliminate our several immigration quotas and streamline our visa application processes, while still thoroughly vetting entrance applicants to screen out freeloaders and criminals, and be pretty draconian regarding illegal aliens--immediate deportation and no entry allowed for some significant period (10 years or more) of time. Key for me is requiring assimilation. If immigrants want to hold themselves apart from our culture and stay within their old country culture, they're not only doing our nation no good, they're not doing themselves any good, either, and they will have wasted their trip. If immigrants demand we adapt to them, rather than they adapt to us--worse, if they succeed--they'll destroy the very culture that made us the magnet we are, and that drew them.
Perhaps education, philosophy, cooperation and personal responsibility in ways our society as a whole have not entertained before need to be seriously considered.
The concept of personal responsibility--nee self-reliance--was at our core for a long time, since before our Revolutionary War. That needs to be recovered, and the concept that Government needs to be involved in everything needs to be put back in Pandora's box. Key to that, is indeed, education, and that needs to be heavily revamped to go back to teaching American culture and away from DEI in our social studies curricula.
concepts of respect and cooperation need to be a basis for solutions is eminently possible and best achieved within the nation-state framework. See, for instance Japan and the Republic of China, entirely bereft of natural resources, but prosperous nations through cooperation with other nation-states and trading with them. Compare that with Russia or the People's Republic of China which seek wealth (rather than prosperity) through seizing others' populations (in Russia's case) or others' natural resources (in the PRC's case), to the deprecation of themselves, their victims, and all the other nations of our world. See the United States, Europe, and the rest of North America, for all the ups and downs of those relationships--they're more up, for mutual prosperity, than down.
Birth control is not a taboo subject for any political party that I know of. That debate centers on the techniques of birth control and whether the embryo/fetus is a baby. It's also a subject with far wider implications than just immigration, so I won't pursue it further in this context.
Eric Hines
No. of Recommendations: 3
" no one and no group has an intrinsic right to enter another nation without that nation's prior permission, and no nation has an intrinsic obligation to grant permission"
Nations are made-up entities. At one time, physical boundaries were determined by geographic aspects (rivers, mountains etc.). But in modern times, nations are whatever they say they are and are willing to defend (sometimes via treaty and negotiation, sometimes by war).
National boundaries change all the time. Even our own aren't the same as in 1776 when we first declared our existence.
Look at a map from say 1945.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Perhaps we are talking about different aspects of the topics mentioned above.
I was addressing landmass and the quality of life due to carrying capacity of said landmass. What "resources," have we expanded? Our fisheries? Our air quality? Our forests and wetlands??? Our water sheds??? It sounds like you are talking about products not resources.
Technology is threatening our humanity, if you ask me. We have social media run amok. Our culture is being run by algorithm dividing people by bot, our children have less attention span than goldfish in school, and don't realize they are being manipulated and led astray, for corporate profit. Democracy, the United States is being denigrated within the branches of its own government, and politicians are running against it.
"Technology" has concentrated power in fewer and fewer people--even as the population swells. Who benefits from this??? I have an 25 year old wooden drying rack that I stepped on and broke. I have bought several different ones, trying to get the same quality, from the same business I bought the first one from. The business is now bankrupt and every product the re-organized company has sent me is inferior by at least thirty to forty percent. One didn't even last a week. That would never have happened 25 years ago.
San Diego just experienced a 1,000-year flood and my mother-in-law who has lived there on and off for 90 years has and Coronado Island was flooded, as well.
As for birth control, it's a crime that the most important question would center on whether the embryo/fetus is a baby instead of whether or not a woman can be forced to have a child irregardless of her mental, emotional, or physical capacity to carry a child and/or take care of it.
"Access to contraception in the United States is increasingly under threat, say CU researchers, as some lawmakers interpret the 2022 Dobbs decision as a license to restrict birth control, and a growing effort to stigmatize contraception takes hold on social media. Oct 9, 2023" University of Colorado, Boulder
Also, "personal responsibility" does not start and end with Self-reliance. Personal responsibility is ethical and moral personal behavior and how it affects the community, not just oneself.
The important thing is to accurately address the issues that are at the bottom of our troubles, which are not confined to lack of self-reliance. Self-reliance is a subset of worldly wisdom.
I also doubt silicon-based technology can solve carbon-based problems. We must look to ourselves, collectively, not individually, to solve these problems. Human kind needs to turn it's attention to finding a way to cooperate and face reality.
We can't keep kicking the can down the road or pretending some bot or AI is going to fix it for us.
