I've read the insane delusions of Matt Yglesias and he's actually talking about mass immigration from the global south rather than native births.
The neoliberal sub loves this idea because their understanding of how economics works is fundamentally flawed. They read statistics that say immigration increases economic output at a greater per capita rate than without it, so they think you can just move as many people in as possible and the economy will stay the same but scale up. The problem is in order to logistically accept that many immigrants you'd have to remove all barriers to entry and actually actively recruit people to move there. What that means is you will get mostly poor, low skilled and uneducated people. That means a shortage of high skilled professionals like doctors and engineers on top of massive housing shortages and skyrocketing food prices.
The funniest thing is that judging from the people on the neoliberal sub, they don't really even think about the sociopolitical problems that would come out of that. Like an insane rise in far right terrorism and a rise in left wing politics as the poor living in overcrowded slums become a political force. They think neoliberals would still get elected lmao.
yeah they're either grifters or complete idiots. bail outs prove the math is flawed. even if the idea of dog eat dog capitalism wasn't a heinous, morality devoid construct, the fucking math doesn't even add up.
it must be so much easier not having to think for yourself and just believing that 'red team bad guys. america good. i like money.'
tbh mass immigration from the global south could be a good thing in a sustainable, green, socialist system, but holy shit this is insane under neoliberalism. at least in a green socialist system, youd be putting less strain on the global environment by moving most of humanity to specific highly developed areas of specific continents. this means the productive forces can be pushed into communism and skip over capitalist stages for developing regions.
Why would there even continue to be a global south under Green Socialism? There would be a massive redistribution of plundered wealth out of the colonial core back to the places from which said weath was plundered.
it can be very expensive, carbon wise, to develop certain areas extensively. most of south america, south east asia, and the congo should just be left alone, for example, except for maybe some choice coastal cities.
china, north america along the mississippi, the indus and ganges, and the rhineland are probably the best places for human development. generally any area with big rivers and lots of plains in order to avoid cutting down forests.
and i fail to see how getting people to immigrate to the former imperial core wouldnt also be considered a redistribution of wealth, assuming all services are rendered equally
If you double the population, food gets more expensive
source: food prices literally anywhere in the world that isn't a settler state that genocided a native population within the last 400 years
also, climate change
and the food quality is already going down to begin with, it's just not noticeable/drastic enough for people in the US to hate their lives yet. Virtually all your seafood is filled with plastic. Fuji apples started going downhill in 2011. I even found an article about it several years later to vindicate my suspicion
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-is-altering-the-taste-and-texture-of-fuji-apples-44558/
They were specifically talking about "skyrocketing food prices" due to "mass immigration from the global south rather than native births".
Climate change is irrelevant here.
If anything it is gentrification that drives up food prices locally. (although the global effect is much more complicated)
These systems are not simply driven by supply/demand, it is more like they are driven by the supply of money in consumers wallets. If people are willing to pay more the prices go up.
What else could one expect in a world that can easily feed its entire population, but decides not to when there is no profit to be made.
The rising global food prices are mostly a sign of globalization, with rich countries driving up prices, such that poor countries are exporting food, often as high value density meat, instead of feeding their own people.
At this point with Covid-19 it works somewhat differently; prices have gone up because suddenly less people are eating in restaurants.
More people with plenty of money are instead buying their food online, effectively gentrifying those prices.
But also there is a supply problem, since much of the food produced for industry cannot simply be sold in stores because packaging plants do not have adequate capacity.
Food markets are globalized, increasing the total world population could increase food prices.
But immigration into a food exporting country like the USA simply does not.
I'm 34, financially stable and living with my girlfriend, and I have zero plans to have children. We have a dog and two cats and it's going to stay that way, most that will happen is we add another dog in a year or two.
Boomers created a world where it costs $500k to raise a child to adulthood and are also gutting social security and pushing the retirement age up. If I have to choose between maybe retiring someday or having a child, retirement is going to win 100% of the time. Not to mention it's morally questionable IMO to bring a child into a world with ever worsening income inequality and a looming climate disaster.
the idea that its “wrong” to bring a child into the world because.... is unnecessarily binary towards a complex decision.
If you prefer not to have children or don’t think you could provide stability for your child then that’s your call, but if you did have a child and the wrath of Climate change burned your whole city to the ground. It’s not your fault for having a child bc you knew about Climate change. In the same way it wouldn’t be your responsibility if a tsunami destroyed your city and you lived near a fault line.
For as much pressure as we put on people to have kids. Wanting a life without children needs more encouragement. Let’s not frame the decision in such good vs bad terms.
same but for me those that did had them accidently or unexpectedly. only one person i know (my sis) had planned and she has as very stable decent paying job
lol. you fuckers are gonna need way more affordable housing, healthcare, and infrastructure for your white supremacist wet dreams
like i know plenty of mid 30s people who refuse to have kids because they cant get financially stable, and youre asking them to pop out 5-7 kids?
I've read the insane delusions of Matt Yglesias and he's actually talking about mass immigration from the global south rather than native births.
The neoliberal sub loves this idea because their understanding of how economics works is fundamentally flawed. They read statistics that say immigration increases economic output at a greater per capita rate than without it, so they think you can just move as many people in as possible and the economy will stay the same but scale up. The problem is in order to logistically accept that many immigrants you'd have to remove all barriers to entry and actually actively recruit people to move there. What that means is you will get mostly poor, low skilled and uneducated people. That means a shortage of high skilled professionals like doctors and engineers on top of massive housing shortages and skyrocketing food prices.
The funniest thing is that judging from the people on the neoliberal sub, they don't really even think about the sociopolitical problems that would come out of that. Like an insane rise in far right terrorism and a rise in left wing politics as the poor living in overcrowded slums become a political force. They think neoliberals would still get elected lmao.
I don't think people who unironically call themselves neoliberals really understand anything
They think they know best though because there is a billion dollar industry pumping them full of cherry picked statistics and false analysis.
yeah they're either grifters or complete idiots. bail outs prove the math is flawed. even if the idea of dog eat dog capitalism wasn't a heinous, morality devoid construct, the fucking math doesn't even add up.
it must be so much easier not having to think for yourself and just believing that 'red team bad guys. america good. i like money.'
tbh mass immigration from the global south could be a good thing in a sustainable, green, socialist system, but holy shit this is insane under neoliberalism. at least in a green socialist system, youd be putting less strain on the global environment by moving most of humanity to specific highly developed areas of specific continents. this means the productive forces can be pushed into communism and skip over capitalist stages for developing regions.
Why would there even continue to be a global south under Green Socialism? There would be a massive redistribution of plundered wealth out of the colonial core back to the places from which said weath was plundered.
it can be very expensive, carbon wise, to develop certain areas extensively. most of south america, south east asia, and the congo should just be left alone, for example, except for maybe some choice coastal cities.
china, north america along the mississippi, the indus and ganges, and the rhineland are probably the best places for human development. generally any area with big rivers and lots of plains in order to avoid cutting down forests.
and i fail to see how getting people to immigrate to the former imperial core wouldnt also be considered a redistribution of wealth, assuming all services are rendered equally
deleted by creator
lol no. Just no. Is this a bit? Find me just one single reputable source that says that.
If you double the population, food gets more expensive
source: food prices literally anywhere in the world that isn't a settler state that genocided a native population within the last 400 years
also, climate change
and the food quality is already going down to begin with, it's just not noticeable/drastic enough for people in the US to hate their lives yet. Virtually all your seafood is filled with plastic. Fuji apples started going downhill in 2011. I even found an article about it several years later to vindicate my suspicion https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-is-altering-the-taste-and-texture-of-fuji-apples-44558/
They were specifically talking about "skyrocketing food prices" due to "mass immigration from the global south rather than native births".
Climate change is irrelevant here.
The USA exports more food than any other country.
These two maps from ourworldindata.org show poorer countries spend a higher percentage of income on food, but they also spend less on food.
The groceries index also shows that food prices for equivalent items tends to be lower in poorer countries.
If anything it is gentrification that drives up food prices locally. (although the global effect is much more complicated)
These systems are not simply driven by supply/demand, it is more like they are driven by the supply of money in consumers wallets. If people are willing to pay more the prices go up.
What else could one expect in a world that can easily feed its entire population, but decides not to when there is no profit to be made.
The rising global food prices are mostly a sign of globalization, with rich countries driving up prices, such that poor countries are exporting food, often as high value density meat, instead of feeding their own people.
At this point with Covid-19 it works somewhat differently; prices have gone up because suddenly less people are eating in restaurants.
More people with plenty of money are instead buying their food online, effectively gentrifying those prices.
But also there is a supply problem, since much of the food produced for industry cannot simply be sold in stores because packaging plants do not have adequate capacity.
Food markets are globalized, increasing the total world population could increase food prices.
But immigration into a food exporting country like the USA simply does not.
Edit: more data showing people just spend more on food if they can afford it, and share of disposable income spent on food has gone down continuously in the USA for decades.
I'm 34, financially stable and living with my girlfriend, and I have zero plans to have children. We have a dog and two cats and it's going to stay that way, most that will happen is we add another dog in a year or two.
Boomers created a world where it costs $500k to raise a child to adulthood and are also gutting social security and pushing the retirement age up. If I have to choose between maybe retiring someday or having a child, retirement is going to win 100% of the time. Not to mention it's morally questionable IMO to bring a child into a world with ever worsening income inequality and a looming climate disaster.
the idea that its “wrong” to bring a child into the world because.... is unnecessarily binary towards a complex decision.
If you prefer not to have children or don’t think you could provide stability for your child then that’s your call, but if you did have a child and the wrath of Climate change burned your whole city to the ground. It’s not your fault for having a child bc you knew about Climate change. In the same way it wouldn’t be your responsibility if a tsunami destroyed your city and you lived near a fault line.
For as much pressure as we put on people to have kids. Wanting a life without children needs more encouragement. Let’s not frame the decision in such good vs bad terms.
deleted by creator
same but for me those that did had them accidently or unexpectedly. only one person i know (my sis) had planned and she has as very stable decent paying job
They'll just use climate refugees for slave labor
deleted by creator