Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (101036)	2/18/2005 3:54:51 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 793964

I disagree. We cannot possibly predict what things will look like from an immigration standpoint in 2050 which, incidentally, I use simply as a point at which demographic trends will become acute. It could be earlier or later, but it's a good guess given the available data. Socially and culturally, I think it's best to have internal population growth. Mind you, things are not as bad here as they are elsewhere. In order to keep a population stable, 2.1 children need to be born and raised per family on average. Each child replaces each parent and the .1 replaces the children who unfortunately don't make it to adulthood. We are presently at 1.96, which is a lot better than many Europeans, some who may be at 1.3, which is incredibly low. I think the Japanese are even lower, perhaps at 1.1. It won't take much of a policy shift to cure the demographic problem we face. But we need to know that the approaching retirement of the boomers coupled with the with an uncorrected trend could result in a real disaster for the US in a few decades, especially if the 1.96 birth rate goes down even lower.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next