politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
what does "psyop" mean in that context? i'm not paid by the republicans if that's what you mean
also, yes, you've been doing just fine WITH Rule of the Land in the past, of course. Though if you believe in Economics 101, you'll understand Supply and Demand, i.e. if there's more supply of human labor (more people in the country), then the prices for human labor go down, i.e. the people get paid lower wages, and (i claim) that is the biggest contributing factor to human quality-of-life: the ratio of income to cost-of-living.
Now, if you care about the people's wellbeing, you want to keep their quality-of-life as high as possible. And that socio-economically entails maximizing the ratio of income to cost-of-living. If a lower supply of human labor, such as by a falling birthrate or reduced immigration achieves that, then i'm all for it.
Do you have any more questions?
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
You know what gives industrialized countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now. And low wealth inequality, which is a definite unrelated problem in the US.
The USA has a low birthrate. And immigration has completely made up for it because they skew young.
Take that away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
From a purely economic quality of life perspective, setting all morals aside, the US should pull in as many immigrants as it can. We're basically screwed now.
Meanwhile, the fallacy of immigration hurting wages is basically the South Park episode “Goobacks”
"bolstered entire industries", i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people's wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that's what matters.
That argument is a fallacy and can just as easily be turned around, like:
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of ~~retirees~~ kids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.
You should watch the video. I used to be an overpopulation doomer, and it completely changed my perspective, especially when I dug into papers backing it up.
It's worth mentioning that the videos perspective and conclusions are made within the lens of a capitalistic economy. Other economic models differ in their needs for economic stability. It's also worth noting that capitalism has its own internal contradictions that have no real solution.
If we extend the logical basis of the video we end up with a scenario where the economy requires infinite growth which requires an infinitely expanding population to sustain. This is just not possible within a closed system with finite resources.
In conclusion we have yet to reach a point of overpopulation, however we aren't very far from it given the compound growth required to sustain the most common economic system we utilize. Humans have used more of our natural resources in the last generation than all generations of the past put together. We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
Of course. 100% agree with this, even if better technology helps. It will have to be pretty soon.
But in the very short term? This is going to be a disaster, and the human population is shooting itself in the foot by not accepting immigration from extreme birth rate countries (where overpopulation is indeed an issue).