The death won’t be natural or peaceful.
You can see this in current EU politics already — seniors expect pensions sufficient to maintain their existing standard of living, but this assumes that there exists the same amount of working people to sustain a sufficient surplus for the elderly to consume without meaningful contribution to the economy.
What your policy actually means in reality is a well-known pattern — increasing taxes on the young to shift their consumption power to the elderly, as the elderly become an increasingly larger voting bloc, perpetuating the cycle.
There’s only a few ways this can end — 1) retirees must have their living standards decrease as fewer working adults sustain them, 2) they maintain their standards at the expense of taking it from the young, who 3) will leave for other countries and make the problem worse, or 4) retirees exit retirement and actually work. You’re seeing the fight between options 1/2 happen in France, 2/3 in Spain, al four in Germany, etc.
The option that policy makers see is 5) bring in enough migrants to maintain healthy demographics and 6) making more domestic babies. 6 is, however, a mirage; no policy we have tried worked (see SK, HK, SG, TW, JP, and many more).
Awfully unlucky that ours is the generation that has to face the retirement pyramid scheme collapsing. But bringing in a horde of foreigners is like saying "fuck you, not my problem" to the next generation. It HAS to come crashing down at one point.
Do I have a solution to this problem? No. But there has to be a solution that doesn't include my country getting a Wikipedia article of it's own about a list of granade attacks commited, like Sweden has...
Going by current estimates, immigration can plug the demographics gap (by accelerating the problem elsewhere mostly) for a minimum of 100 years, probably 200 and maybe even 300+ depending on growth patterns and economic developments.
So yes, it’s going to be a solution for as long as America has been a country, France as a republic, longer than Germany and Italy united, more than many modern countries have existed. If that’s not a long-term solution, I don’t know what is.
There are no thousand year solutions here. We can only pass the problem to our (many-times) descendants and hope that they figure it out.
Only in the sense that there are enough people in aggregate, ie you don't care about anything other than the person being a person. It's not actually realistic to think European countries will just let in a bunch of people from another culture, forever, just to fix the demographic problem.
That’s why I’m, unlike most pro-immigration people, very pro assimilation —- language proficiency tests, an intentional strategy of educating immigrant young in public schools, dispersing large immigrant diasporas throughout the country, etc. I agree that immigration without at least some policy of assimilating them is a recipe for perpetual social unrest and instability.
In the US, successful assimilations look mostly like this. Kids go to American public schools, start forgetting their parent’s language and culture, leading them to look pretty much like every other American. The Chinese do it much more harshly without a drastic increase in efficiency, so the soft route seems to be the sweet spot. There’s no reason to think that you can’t assimilate them. Discourage mosques, try to disperse high concentrations of non-assimilated cultures, it’s not new and it mostly works.
No policy lasts forever. We’re not looking for the next thousand-year solution to the demographic crises; immigration is the 100-year plan, so to speak. We can’t — and shouldn’t —- try to write policy for the next thousand years. There is no other area in which we demand solutions for more than a century. Eventually this policy too will wear out and our descendants will have to go back to the drawing board.
Yup, and in almost every country in the world fertility rates are dropping. We will face a global demographic crisis within a century. We are either going to have to start having kids again or we are in for a brave new world type future, or extinction.
One solution few people mention but that can probably work, is direct solution: hire women to have children, and pay them a wage conditioned on the kids' physical and mental health. Put no limits on those children's numbers, accept that they will be half-literate, traumatised folks - ok they will make perfect post-industrial serfs, but at least they will be there.
This has never happened in history. If the land your people are on has resources and is accessible, you'll get subsumed and assimilated by another one, one way or another. If you want your nation to survive, you have to 1) have a healthy rate of admixture fast enough to prevent inbreeding but slow enough to protect the culture, 2) get to fuckin'. The latter may require some reorganizing of the labor and housing market to make raising more than one or two kids feasible. But if you think your people can fizzle out, you're going to be disappointed whether you like it or not. And it doesn't matter what the government does, they can try to stop it, at some point there's just not enough able bodied of you to utilize and protect your resources. Building a wall around fertile land and staving off migrants who want it til the last one of you dies out is just not going to happen.
War and genocide are options, even if they are horrible ones that shouldn’t be considered. Throughout history, however, cultures assimilating others have often been violent (either through great defense or great offense). European assimilation of the Americas was extremely violent and destructive.
True. Who would ever want to live in the US, with their abysmal GDP and lack of innovation. The US is a prime example that people of multiple cultures or ethnicities can't even be in the same city, let alone the same corporation or government.
The US has been the top performing economy for quite a while, yet only became truly multicultural about 50 years ago. Before that it was all European immigrants, assimilating to white american culture, and the native black people and some natives from the previous era scattered around. You had some cross border cultural transfer along the southern border and carribean, that's it. The amount of multiculturalism the US had until the mid to late 70s was about what you'd expect anywhere else in the world with land borders.
So we can say, the multiculturalism is not the cause of the wealth. The truth is, the causes of the wealth are the sizeable population, regardless of origin, and the vast natural resources it controls. The US is a westphalian state, run like a business. The European nations once were nation states, but have also adopted this model. It works, if your goal is economic output, and unfortunately your goal must be economic output because otherwise you can't compete militarily with a rival who's goal is economic output and you'll get subsumed.
It's also important to consider that the US, prior to the modern era, was a "melting pot" of a somewhat select group of immigrants. We routinely turned away handicapped, poor, sick, mentally deficient, or otherwise "unfit" potential citizens.
The "New Colossus" that adorns the Statue of Liberty is a fun little poem, but it does not in any way reflect the actual policies of the United States for much of its early and middle existence. We were a country that was happy to import wealthy people, scientists, conscientious hard workers, etc, while keeping the riffraff out.
Nyc is hardly representative of america, thank god. And plenty of racisim and inability to adapt by a few cultures endemic to the area. Take your accusations of racism elsewhere.
