World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

No question, work provides purpose. Without work, we see a lot of social ills: drug use, teenage pregnancy, high fertility rates in general, etc. Humans are terrible at giving up short-term benefits for long term gains, which is why I think any UBI system has to go hand-in-hand with population control.

Of course the Utopian ideal is that with a UBI, everyone wears robes, writes poetry, and creates intimately crafted wood carvings. Keynes had the fascinating theory that with higher productivity, people would just work less to enjoy more free time for those pursuits, which of course we did not see happen then. In the higher income, educated segments, I could see that happening today given the constant gripes about being 'busy,' but more broadly, probably not.

Yes, Keynesian economics what a great model, hope it works out, I also want Santa to be real.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by John Drake

The actual UN data:

https://esa.un.org/Unpd/wpp/Publicat...s_WPP_2015.pdf

The key findings are that the world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050.

At that point, there is no future prediction. Only three possibilities: Population continues to climb, moderately. It stays level. Or declines.

In 2012, the National Geographic devoted it's entire January issue to the subject. The world population hit 7 billion then. In that journal, the predicted outcome was more dire (and more plausible). Population numbers will pass 9 billion by 2050 and then crash down to 6 billion.

That is A LOT of people. Anyone remember the four horsemen of the apocalypse? Disease, war, famine, death.

Do a little research and some interesting numbers pop up. The amount of arable land to feed one person on a western diet: about 2 acres. The amount of arable land on earth today, divided by the population: about 2 acres.

Climate change may bring significant change 90 years from now (if ever). 2050, is only 33 years away.

Good luck to us all.

I wouldn't worry too much about that if I were you.

Although there is far less hunger in the world than there was 100 years ago (which is why populations are now increasing in the poorest countries), there is less and less land under cultivation every year in the world. Farmland is being abandoned every year. Here is why:

Attachment 144490

Attachment 144491


Despite climate change (which might actually have a net beneficial effect on world food production), most predictions are that hunger will continue to decline through 2050 and beyond. Here's what the UN says about it:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I didn't mean to say that consumption is not going up. I mean to say that consumption of stuff is not going up. Consumption increases whenever there is growth of income. In advanced countries, almost all this growth is in the consumption of services and, especially, "experiences" -- like travel, entertainment, etc. Cruising is "experience" by the way.

House prices are just a simple matter of supply and demand. Demand is driven by available income and available credit. We buy more expensive houses because we can, and we don't have much choice in places where there are restrictions of supply of developable land, like around London, and the Bay Area.

As to "desire" for stuff -- sure. It's human nature. But it's a fact that we are not consuming more and more of it. Have you ever heard of "peak stuff"? See: Have we reached 'peak stuff'?.

We have reached it in many advanced countries, just like we reached peak food consumption a century or so ago. Now we are moving on to spending money on other things, besides physical goods.

Also interesting to note that the switch from stuff to experiences/services is having an effect on the social scene as well. Things I would never consider having done for me (house cleaning, clothes laundering, etc.) are routinely contracted out by my friends ... so they can have more free time. Previously uncompensated tasks are entering the market. One effect might be a broad split in the working classes: jobs created at the very top, and those at the very bottom, but possibly not many in between.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

Well, that and maybe some singapore-style demographic controls.

Which Singapore-style controls exactly do you mean? Singapore has swung back and forth from discouraging birth ("Stop at Two" policy) to encouraging it ("Have Three or More If You Can Afford It" policy), while never really feeling any demographic problems one way or the other, due to very high percentage of immigrant labor. It's generally thought that Singapore population policies are irrelevant, as the birth rate and replacement rate have tracked Singapore's economic development and have always been about the same as other countries of similar income. See: Singapore Population Control Policies - Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

It's hard to see a Universal Basic Income working with continued population growth. The Gulf countries tried it ...

You mean WITHOUT population growth? It's much, much harder to have economic growth, with a declining population and increasing ratio of retired people to people in productive ages. You have to pay for social programs like a Universal Basic Income, somehow. To have BOTH a social program like that AND declining population, we will have to have unprecedented rates of productivity growth. Which could be possible if technological progress accelerates, as some predict. But if it doesn't happen, then declining population will impoverish us.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

Previously uncompensated tasks are entering the market. One effect might be a broad split in the working classes: jobs created at the very top, and those at the very bottom, but possibly not many in between.

i.e., the death of the middle class. We're already seeing that in the US, although the forces driving it are myriad.

Middle-aged life expectancy, particularly among men, is dropping driven by joblessness, drug addition, depression, and suicide.

And it's driving populism and nationalism. When you grew up privileged (which if you're white, you did), then equality (in terms of social engineering policies, government or private) starts to look a lot like oppression.

Sort of off topic, sorry :P

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by John Drake

The actual UN data:

https://esa.un.org/Unpd/wpp/Publicat...s_WPP_2015.pdf

The key findings are that the world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050.

At that point, there is no future prediction. Only three possibilities: Population continues to climb, moderately. It stays level. Or declines.

In 2012, the National Geographic devoted it's entire January issue to the subject. The world population hit 7 billion then. In that journal, the predicted outcome was more dire (and more plausible). Population numbers will pass 9 billion by 2050 and then crash down to 6 billion.

That is A LOT of people. Anyone remember the four horsemen of the apocalypse? Disease, war, famine, death.

Do a little research and some interesting numbers pop up. The amount of arable land to feed one person on a western diet: about 2 acres. The amount of arable land on earth today, divided by the population: about 2 acres.

Climate change may bring significant change 90 years from now (if ever). 2050, is only 33 years away.

Good luck to us all.

[This makes the Pardey's philosophy, "Go small, go now" even more compelling. Conserve your resources, live your dreams. The future is assured for no one.]

I think that you misunderstand what will happen to make the population go from 9+ billion to 6 billion. It will not be the four horseman - famine, war, etc that will kill off the 3 billion people. It will just be that more people die, basically of old age, than are born. Lets consider the case of Japan since it has gone further down this road than other countries. To maintain its population a country's total fertility rate in the long run must be about 2.1 children per woman - basically a woman has enough kids to replace her and her male partner (the 0.1 covers women who cannot have children or who die before having children). The TFR in Japan is about 1.4 so replacement is not happening. Some other countries TFRs: Singapore 0.8, United States (highest in the advanced world) 2.01, Italy 1.42, Canada 1.59, China 1.55 (ending the one-child policy has not changed this to any great extent), Viet Nam 1.85, India 2.51, Niger 6.89. With the exceptions of few development basket cases (the Nigers of the world - and these are not large populations) the TFRs are dropping steadily. The reason why populations continue to rise even when TFRs are low is that we are talking about generational change. You may have more women in this generation having fewer children, but in another 30 years you will have fewer women (the current generation's babies) having fewer children and populations drop, sometimes quite dramatically.

Another way to look at is to consider birth rates and death rates. Japan's birth rate is about 8 per thousand people in any year. Brazil's is about 15. But, Japan's death rate is 9 while Brazil's is less than 7, so Japan's net is -1 while Brazil's is +8. This is not a comparison of the two countries healthcare systems. Rather it is a reflection of the age compositions of the two. Japan has a lot of elderly people so more die. To take an extreme case, the death rate in Saudi Arabia is only 3.3. It has a very young population (and good health care). As the populations in these countries age their death rates will go up and the populations will stabilize or even decline, depending on the TFRs (Brazil 1.79 and SA 2.17).

My point is that demographic change takes time. The numbers don't lie. Within 50 years the world population will be declining. Now if you want to make the case that there is still a problem with resource use, climate change, pollution I am onside. One thing that is driving demographic transition is growing wealth and urbanization - and hence consumption levels. This is where the problem comes.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

Also interesting to note that the switch from stuff to experiences/services is having an effect on the social scene as well. Things I would never consider having done for me (house cleaning, clothes laundering, etc.) are routinely contracted out by my friends ... so they can have more free time. Previously uncompensated tasks are entering the market. One effect might be a broad split in the working classes: jobs created at the very top, and those at the very bottom, but possibly not many in between.

Yes! That is certainly true.

Middle class jobs as we knew them are declining inevitably. The economy no longer runs on middle class employees, and this is not a problem created by trade. There will have to be a big increase in entrepreneurship, or people living off social benefits and not working, or both, as these jobs inevitably become scarcer.

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Which Singapore-style controls exactly do you mean? Singapore has swung back and forth from discouraging birth ("Stop at Two" policy) to encouraging it ("Have Three or More If You Can Afford It" policy), while never really feeling any demographic problems one way or the other, due to very high percentage of immigrant labor.

I'm referring to 'three or more if you can afford it.' The big problem I see in the US right now is that while we have a stable fertility ratio, dig deeper and that ratio is being driven not by higher level income families but by lower income families. So you have population growth at the bottom end of the spectrum, and job growth at the top end (IT, machine management, other forms of knowledge work, etc.)

A UBI would apply to all those at the low end, and if that population continues to grow at a higher rate than the upper end, it could overwhelm the funds available for UBI or create a significant destabilization in the status quo.

I did not mean to imply that Singapore's rules were responsible for the success story, only that I thought their current policy was a necessity to further a stable, progressive agenda in the near future.

My reference to the Gulf states was specifically Saudi Arabia, where I grew up. Subsidies to every family were very generous in the 80's, but with the population explosion, there's just not as much per capita to go around. The result is a pretty restive populace... With growth in entitlement programs across the US and EU, constraining future costs early seems to be a secret to success.

Edit: I also see a divorce in the logic that as countries move up the economic spectrum, fertility rates drop. I think that will continue to be true at high income levels where families are worried about putting kids through college, summer camp, etc. but what I've seen in the demographic data is that people that don't have a lot of hope or a lot to do have a lot of kids. Hence my thinking that a UBI needs some kind of income-based population control.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by AiniA

I think that you misunderstand what will happen to make the population go from 9+ billion to 6 billion. It will not be the four horseman - famine, war, etc that will kill off the 3 billion people. It will just be that more people die, basically of old age, than are born. Lets consider the case of Japan since it has gone further down this road than other countries. To maintain its population a country's total fertility rate in the long run must be about 2.1 children per woman - basically a woman has enough kids to replace her and her male partner (the 0.1 covers women who cannot have children or who die before having children). The TFR in Japan is about 1.4 so replacement is not happening. Some other countries TFRs: Singapore 0.8, United States (highest in the advanced world) 2.01, Italy 1.42, Canada 1.59, China 1.55 (ending the one-child policy has not changed this to any great extent), Viet Nam 1.85, India 2.51, Niger 6.89. With the exceptions of few development basket cases (the Nigers of the world - and these are not large populations) the TFRs are dropping steadily. The reason why populations continue to rise even when TFRs are low is that we are talking about generational change. You may have more women in this generation having fewer children, but in another 30 years you will have fewer women (the current generation's babies) having fewer children and populations drop, sometimes quite dramatically.

Another way to look at is to consider birth rates and death rates. Japan's birth rate is about 8 per thousand people in any year. Brazil's is about 15. But, Japan's death rate is 9 while Brazil's is less than 7, so Japan's net is -1 while Brazil's is +8. This is not a comparison of the two countries healthcare systems. Rather it is a reflection of the age compositions of the two. Japan has a lot of elderly people so more die. To take an extreme case, the death rate in Saudi Arabia is only 3.3. It has a very young population (and good health care). As the populations in these countries age their death rates will go up and the populations will stabilize or even decline, depending on the TFRs (Brazil 1.79 and SA 2.17).

My point is that demographic change takes time. The numbers don't lie. Within 50 years the world population will be declining. Now if you want to make the case that there is still a problem with resource use, climate change, pollution I am onside. One thing that is driving demographic transition is growing wealth and urbanization - and hence consumption levels. This is where the problem comes.

Yes.

I think by now all major demographic predictions indicate that world population will peak within some period of time between 30 and 100 years from now, and decline after that.

To get world population still growing in 2050, you have to assume that Africa will still have extremely high birth rates. Africa is starting to develop and urbanize just like the rest of the world, so I really seriously doubt this scenario. I think peak population will be less than 9 billion, and we will reach it before 2050.

China became a developed country in an incredibly short period of time -- like 10 or 15 years. I don't think Africa has the same conditions for a similar explosive leap forward, but could Africa do it in say double the time that China took? Heck yes it can, and there are already some signs that it may be starting. If Africa is in 2030 or 2035 where China is today, we will have already passed peak population. I think this is far more likely, than other scenarios, personally.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

I'm referring to 'three or more if you can afford it.' The big problem I see in the US right now is that while we have a stable fertility ratio, dig deeper and that ratio is being driven not by higher level income families but by lower income families. So you have population growth at the bottom end of the spectrum, and job growth at the top end (IT, machine management, other forms of knowledge work, etc.)

A UBI would apply to all those at the low end, and if that population continues to grow at a higher rate than the upper end, it could overwhelm the funds available for UBI or create a significant destabilization in the status quo.

I did not mean to imply that Singapore's rules were responsible for the success story, only that I thought their current policy was a necessity to further a stable, progressive agenda in the near future.

My reference to the Gulf states was specifically Saudi Arabia, where I grew up. Subsidies to every family were very generous in the 80's, but with the population explosion, there's just not as much per capita to go around. The result is a pretty restive populace... With growth in entitlement programs across the US and EU, constraining future costs early seems to be a secret to success.

OK, I understand. I agree.

U.S. demographics are a reflection of our weird U.S. society, which is a weird mix of a very advanced society and pockets of almost third world conditions, then with a lot of net immigration on top. When you mix all those populations together, you get a wrong impression about what is really happening in U.S. demographics.

We are really screwed if we allow whole swaths of the country to languish in third world conditions. We need a massive investment in education, and we need to stop excluding would-be immigrants with educations. We need to not only let them in; we need to get ready to start paying bounties to immigrants with university educations, especially in technical fields. Worldwide competition for educated immigrants is going to start very, very soon.

There will also be massive competition for entrepreneurs, who are already moving around the world more and more in search of better conditions and lower taxes. The world is becoming a market for people -- and whoever fails to compete, will lose. You cannot force anyone to stay (short of building new Berlin Walls ) -- you have to attract them.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Actually W Europe has a lower birth rate because there's high unemployment.. the only area's that have a high birth rate are the immigrant communities where the programming has not had time to change.. and they come West for the relatively higher wage than the East EU countries can afford.. and to support those larger families.
My comparison choice of India was to demonstrate the poor country does not compensate.

Sorry but even in the boom times before 2007, the European birth rates were low and continuing to go down.

It's a fundamental change in wanting or not wanting large families. With or without good economic times, birth rates have and are going down.

It's really an intellectual change as opposed to a simply producing more kids when there is more resources. Animals produce as many offspring as they can. Modern humans have chosen to produce fewer.

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We are really screwed if we allow whole swaths of the country to languish in third world conditions. We need a massive investment in education, and we need to stop excluding would-be immigrants with educations. We need to not only let them in; we need to get ready to start paying bounties to immigrants with university educations, especially in technical fields. Worldwide competition for educated immigrants is going to start very, very soon.

Totally agree. I find it amazing that anyone wants to restrict H1-B visas, or deter international students that we educate from staying here. We need many more of them.

I do question the education piece though. My philosophy has always been, if you can't cure it, at least contain it. After head start, no child left behind, common core, etc. I am losing faith in the ability of government to cure intractable education/social problems. I would prefer homestead grant programs: e.g. $2,000 every year if you come in for a male birth control shot or an IUD, etc. Of course, couple it with better education programs, but education alone I don't think will do it.

To bring it back to cruising, think how much time you could spend working on your boat with a healthy UBI!

[brownoarsman]

I also find myself questioning the traditional wisdom that Japan's demographics are dooming the country. Yes deflation exists and GDP growth has been hit, but GDP per capita has been increasing. And quality of life is much more about GDP per capita than total GDP. I don't even know how Japan's real estate and asset bubble fits into that - I don't think housing stock or asset appreciation is captured in GDP? If not, collapsing house prices may even be a good thing for non owners, one can buy more space

[AiniA]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

I also find myself questioning the traditional wisdom that Japan's demographics are dooming the country. Yes deflation exists and GDP growth has been hit, but GDP per capita has been increasing. And quality of life is much more about GDP per capita than total GDP. I don't even know how Japan's real estate and asset bubble fits into that - I don't think housing stock or asset appreciation is captured in GDP? If not, collapsing house prices may even be a good thing for non owners, one can buy more space

I was not suggesting that Japan's demographics were dooming the country. Rather I think that Japan may be a model for the demographies of other countries. A microcosm here in southern Ontario - an elementary school that was closing for lack of enrolment was being rebuilt as a seniors' residence.

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by AiniA

I was not suggesting that Japan's demographics were dooming the country. Rather I think that Japan may be a model for the demographies of other countries. A microcosm here in southern Ontario - an elementary school that was closing for lack of enrolment was being rebuilt as a seniors' residence.

I think that's definitely true. Japan should provide at least one test case for countries facing similar demographic transitions.