[spaceman_2020]

Outside of Peter Zeihan, I'm also utterly surprised that no one even brings up the demographics debate. Everyone has been so indoctrinated on the "we have too many people" propaganda that they haven't even realized how fast birth rates have dropped across the globe (and they're dropping even faster now).

The demographics of Europe, China, Japan and S. Korea are all terminal at this point. Outside of UK, France, and to some extent, Germany, most of these countries don't even have an immigrant culture to make up for the shortfall.

America, meanwhile, has decent native birth rate AND a culture that's always willing to accommodate new people.

[oblio]

> America, meanwhile, has decent native birth rate

No, it doesn't. It's about 1.8 and dropping, and most of the higher values in that group are from recent immigrants, which are also having fewer kids. Educated folks also have lower fertility rates.

The US is basically a mirror of Western Europe in this regard:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rate...

> AND a culture that's always willing to accommodate new people.

I'd argue that the biggest factors by far these days are:

1. English (very accessible due to music, movies, TV shows, etc).

2. Lots and lots of natural resources facilitating lots of businesses which aren't really feasible in say, Germany, France, Japan.

3. Large population bringing economies of scaling facilitating advanced businesses paying high salaries.

Otherwise someone who travels around the US and Western Europe, for example, will be quite surprised at the cultural convergence and immigration levels.

Most of your comment is a perception from 2-3 decades back, at least.

[graeme]

>No, it doesn't. It's about 1.8 and dropping

The OECD average is 1.67. America has a relative advantage

Here's a dataset of various countries' fertility rates: https://splash-db.eu/dataset/population-indicators/

[flerovium]

Yes, but much of the difference in the average is due to recent immigrants.

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

That's literally the point he made above... America has always been a nation of immigrants. This is a good thing, not something to be singled out and act like it's a negative.

[spaceman_2020]

Even at 1.8, it's higher than the rest of the developed world.

And America always has the option of simply opening the gates a little and fill up the gap with practically any immigrant group it wants.

[skissane]

> Even at 1.8, it's higher than the rest of the developed world.

Not true. If you look at OECD data – https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm – the latest year for which the OECD has complete data is 2021, in which it records a US TFR of 1.6. The following countries all recorded higher TFRs than the US – Israel (2.9); Mexico (2.1); France, Colombia and Turkey (tied at 1.8); Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden (all tied at 1.7). The US, at 1.6, was at the OECD Average (1.6), tied with Australia, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia and the UK.

I suppose you might argue 2020 was a rather abnormal year due to COVID. Well, 2019 was pre-COVID, in which the US was still only 1.7 – just a a bit above the OECD average (which was 1.6 in 2019 too). In 2019, US fertility was tied with Australia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden; it was beaten by France, Colombia and Iceland (all 1.8), Turkey (1.9), Mexico (2.1), and Israel (3.0).

US fertility is not an outlier at all by developed world standards. It is somewhere between average and slightly above average. And I realise some OECD members might not be considered "developed" by everyone's standards – such as Costa Rica, Colombia, Mexico or Turkey – but the US is regularly equalled or bettered by countries which generally are accepted as such, e.g. Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden.

[kevviiinn]

Xenophobia and racism prevents that

[phatfish]

Racism and xenaphobia of the native population has very little effect on migration if the reward for the migrants is enough.

If a "developed" country wanted to stop migration they would work to raise the living standards at the source. There is less chance of that happening than removing xenaphobic behaviour from the natives however.

Or the "developed" society becomes more brutal than the place the migrant are fleeing from, so they stay away out of fear.

[wahern]

> If a "developed" country wanted to stop migration they would work to raise the living standards at the source.

Biden at least nominally adopted such as policy. See, for example, "U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America", https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Root-C...

But, AFAICT, it's mostly been a quiet public-private approach that in dollar terms isn't very substantial. See, e.g., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

If you look at Haiti, Venezuela, etc, it seems the limiting factor here is an unwillingness of the U.S. to leverage any political muscle, either domestically or internationally. I presume that's partly a consequence of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also probably because for some large factions, especially on the left but increasingly on the right, in American politics any form of involvement is unacceptable. It's almost like a radical ecological argument: the rest of the world is in a state of nature, and any intervention by an external agency is per se morally evil; the moral imperative is non-intervention, outcomes are irrelevant. Even those who don't hold this belief (explicitly or implicitly) at least understand the consequences: any perceived failure in intervention will be blamed on them, and nobody wants to face the ire of the religionists.

[seanmcdirmid]

> It's almost like a leftist ecological argument: the rest of the world is in a state of nature, and any intervention by an external agency is per se morally evil.

The USA will get flack if it meddles and if it doesn't meddle, they really shouldn't worry about world opinion at that point. More to the point, it is impossible for America to fix the rest of the world, even if that were the moral thing to do. Welcoming some immigrants from countries having problems is probably the best we can do.

[Krisando]

> xenaphobia of the native population

People being afraid of the warrior princess is probably a good thing.

[alchemist1e9]

> Xenophobia and racism prevents that

Huh? My understanding is the US scores lowest of any country on objective measures of both.

Which country has less Xenophobia and racism? People throw out Canada often but I believe empirically that is false.

[faeriechangling]

Canada explicitly legalized racism so long as it’s done for equity purposes. In America the same laws would be unconstitutional and immigrants of all types coming to the country on a regular basis. This is a country where the median income of several immigrant groups outstrips that of the local population despite factors such as nepotism.

Define racism I suppose. Is racism inequality or inequity?

[zarzavat]

How is xenophobia measured empirically?

[DamnYuppie]

Probably by the ethnic distribution of the immigrants. Most of US immigrant are not white so I don’t understand your argument. Maybe only Canada has more diverse immigrants than the US.

[pradn]

> Lots and lots of natural resources facilitating lots of businesses which aren't really feasible in say, Germany, France, Japan.

This doesn't seem to be a big factor in the boom industries in the US: tech, finance, pharma. It does matter for construction, the biggest employer.

The US still seems like a more welcoming place than western Europe. Or at least you can take comfort in a suburban home and drive to people/institutions that are from your immigrant group.

We have an immigrant ethos that exceeds that of the UK, France, and Germany. Plus, our large number of decent universities means the masters/F1->OPT->H1B pipeline works well for many educated workers.

[oblio]

> We have an immigrant ethos that exceeds that of the UK, France, and Germany.

Again with the outdated mindset. Those countries have as many immigrants or more, per capita, as the US.

> Plus, our large number of decent universities means the masters/F1->OPT->H1B pipeline works well for many educated workers.

Those work well for drawing people in, but how well do they serve second generation immigrants or minorities? Universities in Europe are cheap or free, that's a whole lot more egalitarian.

The US speaks English, is big and has a TON of money. The US basically brute forces everything, which I guess works.

[ClumsyPilot]

> The US still seems like a more welcoming place than western Europe.

I personally know peolle that left US for UK because they found your immigration system unacceptable.

If you are from india, you might have to wait 10 years to get citizenship after fulfilling all requirements.

Uk immigration system itself is worse than that of France and many other countries.

It costs $10,000 to apply for visas for a family of 4. Thats just the money you pay to the government, assuming you never need a solicitor to help with the paperwork.

[lttlrck]

That's a side effect of the system using quotas to balance opportunity so immigration isn't overwhelmed by the most populous countries.

Of course that makes it very difficult if you are from India for example, but it doesn't make the system as a whole less welcoming.

[midoridensha]

>If you are from india, you might have to wait 10 years to get citizenship after fulfilling all requirements.

I read somewhere that the waiting line for Indian people is 180 years, not 10.

[oblio]

https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/

Exxon, Chevron, Marathon, Valero, Philips 66.

5 American oil and gas companies in the worldwide top 100 by revenue. A bunch of pharma & co, also dependent on cheap oil and gas.

[pertymcpert]

In the modern world, 1.8 is very solid. Easily can make up for that with immigration.

[bombcar]

At some point you run out of places for people to immigrate from unless you just empty entire countries.

[satvikpendem]

Until the US ceases to be a desirable destination for many immigrants, which could take quite a while.

[Dylan16807]

That's not something to worry about until the global population stops (rapidly) growing.

[rayiner]

No European country (UK excepted) has an “immigrant culture.” In recent decades, some European countries have accepted large numbers of immigrants. But as far as I can tell, they’ve even relegated to an economically disadvantaged underclass in every one of those countries. They’re not buying Apple products. For example, average income for Turks in Germany (a group that started immigrating in the 1970s) is estimated to be 2,000 euros per month: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/193000-turks-come-back-fro.... Average income for Germans as a whole is almost 4,000 euros per month.

Meanwhile in America, median household income for Vietnamese Americans—who also started immigrating in the 1970s, as refugees—matched the national average sometime in the 1990s.

[greatpatton]

Taking Vietnamese as an example, may not be the best example. Vietnamese immigrants in France are also doing well (Vietnamese diaspora in France is the second in size behind the US).

[oblio]

Why are you cherry picking immigrant groups?

What are the statistics for Poles, Italians, Russian Germans? Heck, what are the statistics for Vietnamese Germans?

The US has plenty of minority and immigrant groups for which convergence is... far from happening.

[dtheodor]

He is not cherry picking, he picked the largest immigrant group, twice as large as the next one

[rootusrootus]

By what metric is Vietnamese the largest immigrant group? The largest is easily Mexico, and I don't see that Vietnam cracks the top 5, and maybe not the top 10.

[illiac786]

The largest immigrant group in Germany is Turkish people, that's what was said.

[oblio]

I could also pick the biggest minority group in the US, and trust me, Turks have a much better life in Germany.

[rayiner]

The largest minority group in the US is Hispanics. White Americans have a median household income 36% higher than the median household income of Hispanics. The median income of Germans is almost double the median income of Turkish Germans.

[type0]

There are different kind of Hispanics in US and they are treated differently

Why don't Americans put all German speakers into the same group as well and call them Germanics?

[woobar]

Per capita income for Poles, Italians, Russian, and Germans is higher than median US per capita income. [1]

Household income of these four groups is also higher than median household income. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

[dragonwriter]

> Per capita income for Poles, Italians, Russian, and Germans is higher than median US per capita income.

US per capita income is higher than US median personal income (that’s what happens with concentrated-at-the-top instead of normal distributions.) But you probably mean “mean” rather than “median” since that’s what your source actually provides.

[woobar]

I am not sure you looked at my sources. Direct quotes: "The following median per capita income data..."/"The following median household income data..."

Household income is higher than per capita for all groups.

[rayiner]

> Why are you cherry picking immigrant groups?

I picked large, visible minority immigrant groups that have been in their destination country for more than a generation.

> What are the statistics for Poles, Italians, Russian Germans?

There’s far fewer of those than Turks, and many are ethnic Germans to begin with.

> The US has plenty of minority and immigrant groups for which convergence is... far from happening

There’s only two: black people and indigenous people, neither of which are immigrant groups. Economic migrants go the US, such as Germans, Italians, and Irish, all economically assimilated decades ago. Hispanics are on the same track: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353.

[geodel]

> What are the statistics for Poles, Italians, Russian Germans?

Maybe find and share, if you looking to refute the point.

[oblio]

I don't have the numbers but what I can share is that Vietnamese are considered a model minority in several European countries, including some not famous for their integration policies, such as Czechia. So the fact that Vietnamese Americans are doing well is not some weird thing.

[carlosjobim]

Turks in Germany is not "cherry picking" - they are one of the largest immigrant groups and have been immigrating to Germany for much longer than other big groups.

[wkat4242]

> AND a culture that's always willing to accommodate new people.

Try getting a green card even as a trained European. Good luck :)

Not that I'd ever be interested in living in the US. I prefer a country with a decent social security safety net and socialized healthcare. And where people can't just run around carrying guns.

Spain is not perfect but I have way fewer things to worry about here. So I can relax and enjoy life more.

[alchemist1e9]

You are buying into a distorted image of the typical US population experience. Access to healthcare is pretty much instant and high quality for all but the very bottom of the society. 85%+ of the population can get an appointment within a day or two and if it’s urgent can access numerous urgent care clinics with almost no wait.

Best I can tell for many European countries the situation is significantly worse in terms of access.

There is a lot of strange misconceptions about US quality of life from people in other countries.

[laurencerowe]

Be sure to check that urgent care clinic is in network first! Having a well paid job in a big US metro gives you access to excellent healthcare but the bureaucracy here is a huge pain compared to countries with universal systems.

Coming from the UK I would have picked the NHS as it was when I left 10 years ago over what I have access to here, but the Tories have really run that service into the ground in the interim.

[wkat4242]

It's not the access really. More the worry about paying for it. In the US it can cost a lot, and while your employer covers it usually, this means you're really tied to your job. Here in Spain I never have to worry about paying for it.

I'm sure the healthcare in the US is world-class considering how much it costs. But that cost is the biggest problem for me.

But really, I'm a socialist and considering that this is a swearword in the US for many people, I just don't want to ever live there. My world view is just too different. I've never even visited.

[wintermutestwin]

> 85%+ of the population can get an appointment within a day or two

I'd love to see where you got that statistic. IME, I have to wait months for any kind of specialist. And when I finally get to see one, my insurance underpays and then I spend endless hours fighting with both the provider and the insurer. This crap happens every single time I need to see a doctor. I can't wait to retire and move to a second world country that has US trained doctors who give you their personal cell number.

Heathcare in the US has become a terrible joke.

[alchemist1e9]

> IME, I have to wait months for any kind of specialist.

Ok sure so just realize when you retire in that 2nd world country the wait is for GPs! forget specialist.

> https://www.england.nhs.uk/gp/case-studies/routine-gp-appoin...

The average has dropped to 10 days! The US wait for equivalent of GP is like next 1-2 days, or even same day if you get triaged by the group.

Also they are seeing 30+ patients a day which even in busier US locations is at least 1/2 that rate.

It’s a myth that US healthcare is worse than other countries.

[ClumsyPilot]

> > https://www.england.nhs.uk/gp/case-studies/routine-gp-appoin...

> The average has dropped to 10 days! The US wait for equivalent of GP is like next 1-2 days, or even same day if you get triaged by the group.

Unfortunately NHS is in terrible shape at the moment after many cuts. It is performing at the level of a 2nd world country.

Czechia has canver survival 30% higher than UK does.

I lived in Czechia, we had a proton therapy center for Twenty Years. England got one just recently.

There is a story where larents in Britain had to steal their child from a hospital, to take her to czechia for Proton beam therapy. The UK doctors have declared her terminally ill, refused to let parents take her for other treatment and after parents kidnapped tbeir own child, theyl parents were declared wanted in Interpol, launching internstional manhunt.

They foung in court to get thei4 chance to treat a child, took child to czechia, went through therapy and now child is in scholl and free of cancer

If theu had trusted the NHS their child would be dead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32013634

I also know a bloke who was struggling with backpain for 4 years and could not get it sorted in UK, he through he would become handicapped and retuned to Romania to live it out in peace. Turns out it wss really bad Vitamin D deficciency, which makes your bones soft and allows nerved to be pinched. He is living a full life now.

[makomk]

Bear in mind that a bunch of Americans have been sold on public single-payer healthcare as the solution to the problems with their healthcare system based on the amount the UK spends on the NHS after all those cuts (which are more like spending not increasing at the same rate as demand). Also, one of the big cost savings is that medical staff are paid an awful lot less in the UK than the US.

[yibg]

I live in the Bay Area with good insurance. Next appointment with Stanford for a regular check up with a GP as a new patient is 2-3 months, unless I want to drive an hour away.

[wintermutestwin]

>The US wait for equivalent of GP is like next 1-2 days

Again, I'd like to see the stats on that. I wanted to see my Dr for an annual checkup and was told it was a 2+ month wait and if I didn't want to wait I could see some random nurse practitioner.

There are 2nd world countries where it is incredibly cheap to call your doctor's cell phone and have them come to you in a day or two.

[illiac786]

I can confirm that in multiple European countries you just walk to your GP's office and wait an hour or two (worst case) if you do not have an appointment.

I waited 20 min last time I went without appointment.

Specialists is a different story, the worst being psychologists/therapists (wait time counted in years where I live).

[alchemist1e9]

People are mixing up numbers because of different naming and conventions.

Here is an example item, wait time for knee replacement surgery, or any standard surgery. I’m fairly confident the US is lowest among all G20, by significant amounts.

Your annual checkup wait isn’t an appropriate measure, they do that as they are prioritizing care much better than in bureaucratic socialized medical care. That doctor you are calling on cell likely has much less resources than the nurse practitioner you can be seen in 15-20 mins wait almost 24/7 in every major population center in the US at urgent cares, rapid cares, and worst case ERs. Instant testing, imaging, medications on site.

I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples when people claim they would prefer medical care elsewhere, they have some incorrect assumptions about greener grass, or we are discussing the experience of very lowest income segment of the population.

I do agree that bottom 10% might be slightly better off medically in other countries than the US. That is definitely possible. But for 90% I don’t think it is even remotely competitive.

[amithanda81]

that doesnt reflect my experience in US at all. I come from India. Despite our hospitals being flooded with patients, healthcare is not inaccessible. As it is over here, its a insane system with the priorities a* backwards. Focus on patient, not on your profits.

[acchow]

I think this may be an issue with certain provider networks (have heard horror stories about Kaiser and such).

I'm with Anthem and I've gone directly to various specialties with appointments within 1-5 days.

[DanBC]

> Access to healthcare is pretty much instant and high quality for all but the very bottom of the society.

The US simultaneously under-treats poor people while over-treating rich people. This is why health outcomes in the US are so bad across a range of indicators.

[slaw]

Very bottom of society has free healthcare. For example for WA.

https://www.hca.wa.gov/free-or-low-cost-health-care

[illiac786]

We should define what healthcare means. For example: if you have a cavity, do they simply pull the tooth or do you get a filling? It's just an example, but health care ranges from "preventing you from dying only" up to cosmetic stuff.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

In some states such as Florida and Texas, having low income is not enough for an adult to qualify for Medicaid.

[arbitrary_name]

I'm on FAANG provided PPO and it's a two week wait to see my physician. Specialists are 3-4 months out. Not a rural area.

Worse than my experiences in nz, Australia and UK.

[gniv]

Having moved from a dense hcol area of the US to a dense hcol area of France, my experience has been that 1) I have access to specialists with less than a week wait in both places, but 2) costs in France are much lower than US.

[astrange]

It seems to be a common belief with Europeans that the US has no safety net or public healthcare at all, but of course this isn't true. It's just mainly targeted at poor or old people.

[p_j_w]

I don't think most Europeans believe we have no social safety net or public health care, just that it's woefully inadequate.

[rank0]

The US spends the majority of its budget on social welfare programs.

Gun violence is a tiny fraction of death/injury here. You’re much more likely to die in a car accident.

[_fizz_buzz_]

Firearms are the leading cause of death for American children and teens - higher than motor vehicle deaths.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

[buzzert]

Suicide is often included as a cause of death to intentionally distort this statistic:

> From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (_suicide_, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5%

If you control for this, and include rates of homicide using other means of destruction (i.e., explosives or knives), it starts to look a lot more even compared to other OECD countries (albeit still above average).

[roundandround]

I wouldn't consider that distortion. Its a significant problem that firearms are highly successful suicide on the first impulse. Children who try another means are much more likely to have a chance to contemplate if they really want to kill themselves.

[buzzert]

I'm calling it a distortion, because it's often used as a dishonest portrayal of how prevalent gun violence is in the US. Usually by the media, who wants attention grabbing headlines, and don't really care how the numbers are manipulated to peddle to their readers' selection bias.

[softsound]

Shouldn't that number be concerning 30% of children deaths are from guns?

Suicide or not, doesn't that seem concerning? Hmm... Some people say it's the top way children die now by gun. I remember growing up and having active shooter drills in elementary school but it's nothing like they are now. I think we are one of the few countries where children dieing by firearm has increased 46% in the last twenty years or so.

Where I grew up it wasn't rare to hear about stabbings or shooting but it does put me on edge hearing about a mall I used to go to having an active shooter etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-...

www.kff.org/private-insurance/press-release/firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-in-the-united-states-but-rank-no-higher-than-fifth-in-other-industrialized-nations/amp/

[oceanplexian]

It is concerning. But not for the reasons the media makes it out to be.

Only 0.18% of all gun homicides were committed during a mass shooting. https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/05/debunking-every-maj.... The chances of you being killed in a shooting are less than being struck by lightning. If you don't plan on joining a gang, frequenting a bad part of Baltimore or St. Louis, or committing suicide, it becomes orders of magnitude less likely, to the point where you're no less safe in the USA than any other country.

[oceanplexian]

"Gun violence is the leading cause of death between 1 and 19 years of age" So why did the study chose such a specific age range?

Cut it off at 18 and it wouldn't work, since it would exclude gang violence. Start it at birth and it also wouldn't work, since the statistic would include infant mortality. Unfortunately, that would debunk the fact that gun violence is a widespread problem in the US, rather than something that's happening exclusively in a few poorly run municipalities with excessive levels of poverty, violence, and organized crime.

[wickedsickeune]

What does it mean to "sell" gun control (I get that you mean "promote")? Can someone profit from it and how?

[tmnvix]

> You’re much more likely to die in a car accident.

Maybe so, but I believe you are also more likely to die of a car accident in the US. There's no getting around the fact that amongst western nations, the US has certain aspects to its culture that make it a more dangerous place to live in many ways.

[wkat4242]

You're also much more likely there to die in a car accident than here :) I don't even own a car where I live and I don't need one. In fact I wouldn't even know where to leave it in this city.

Here in Barcelona a flat rate of 20 euros a month takes care of all my travel needs on metro, bus, tram and train <3

[amithanda81]

hilarious ! nobody wants to help anyone else, because you never know if the other party has guns. Its nuts.

[lttlrck]

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole to ground a discussion.

[arwhatever]

Bit of a tangent, but what issues might you mark Spain down on? I’m seriously eyeing their digital nomad visa.

Having stayed there 1-3 months at a time so far, it’s pretty hard to find fault.

[t-3]

> And where people can't just run around carrying guns.

The number of non-cops I've seen openly carrying in public is... One.

[mrkstu]

And your reply neatly encapsulates why, for better or worse, the American economy is more efficient/dynamic. Those immigrating into the country know they'll have to hustle and work to survive and thrive.

[astrange]

No, threatening people with death isn't a good way to get dynamism. The American middle class healthcare system, employer plans, is specifically designed to reduce dynamism by making it harder to quit your job. There's other advantages but not that one.

[mrkstu]

Those w/o means have Medicaid and those with minimal means have Obamacare- you're a little out of date with that specific complaint.

[astrange]

That's why I said "middle class". I made the same point as you one reply over.

[alchemist1e9]

> The American middle class healthcare system, employer plans, is specifically designed to reduce dynamism by making it harder to quit your job.

I’m confused, my understanding was that changing jobs is much much more frequent within the US middle class than elsewhere. How does that make sense if as you say quitting is so risky.

What specifically is risky about the US setup? Of course it encourages not being unemployed as healthcare when unemployed is a problem but most people just line up a new job before quitting.

[astrange]

By "dynamism" I meant it makes it harder to be unemployed, as you might be if you want to start a new business/become a contractor etc. Switching jobs is OK if you already have one lined up.

Also, being married makes it safer (but you might be relying on two incomes) and Obamacare is good in some states.

[alchemist1e9]

There is COBRA for 24 months and co-ops for contractors/sole-proprietors. It takes much more capital to start a business than people realize and a good part of that is cost of healthcare. the paystubs and W2s from employers hide how significant a part of employee compensation the benefits are.

[t3945234]

The United States total fertility rate (1.8 as of 2022) isn't that much different than a large chunk of Europe.

Per this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

* France, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland: 1.8

* Iceland, Czech Republic, UK, Latvia, Netherlands, Belgium, Lithuania, Norway: 1.7

* Romania, Slovenia, Estonia, Albania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Germany, Switzerland, Austria: 1.6

Yes, there's some countries that have even lower levels (eg Italy and Greece), but that's a large chunk of Europe with a pretty similar fertility rate to the United States. I wouldn't give America a pass on any future sort of demographic discussion regarding this. Heck, China (which you list at "terminal") has a fertility rate of 1.7.

[marknutter]

All of those birthrates are terminal, technically.

[oezi]

That is such an odd term. As if it the birthrates could no longer change for the positive or as if it would doom countries with birthrates below 2.1 to die.

[bombcar]

It’s easy to envision things that would induce people to have fewer kids, it’s harder to come up with things that would make them want to have more. These birth rates are completely new experiences for the world and we’re not quite certain what the outcome will be (as it is, there are likely subcultures that are still above replacement on average, even in the most declining societies).

[Dylan16807]

> it’s harder to come up with things that would make them want to have more

"Ability to buy a house or similar" and "affordable daycare" are probably enough to have a huge impact. We don't need a long list of possible answers.

[phatfish]

I bet these five could easily get birth rates above 2.0.

- Reasonable maternity leave allowances.

- Good affordable (or free) healthcare.

- Good affordable (or free) child care until school age.

- Free education to university graduate level.

- Affordable housing.

The super-rich have no interest in allowing this to happen, so countries where having a child is a significant cost will continue to have low fertility rates.

[lttlrck]

Yet despite having none of those things the US birthrate is above most of Europe.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong BTW but it's not that simple.

[piva00]

> Outside of UK, France, and to some extent, Germany, most of these countries don't even have an immigrant culture to make up for the shortfall.

Not really true, for example: Sweden has been doing above EU average on both immigration and higher birth rates (for its development level) to account for the shortfall, it's not that clear cut in Europe as a whole.

[spaceman_2020]

Fair, but Sweden's population is just too small to make any meaningful impact on Europe as a whole.

[swedishfishes]

For the curious Americans, Sweden has about the population of Michigan.

[giantrobot]

How many Rhode Island's is that? Or maybe more appropriately, how many Library of Congresses?

[timeon]

8.4152×10^7 football fields

[giantrobot]

American football or the more globally accepted term for football?

[slaw]

It is 388,903.23 Statues of Liberty.

Source ChatGPT.

what is summary of height for every swede person

what is average of 181 and 167

multiply 1.74 by number of swedes

divide 18,064,000 by height of statue of liberty in meters

[rejectfinite]

Makes us even more impressive ;)

[swedishfishes]

No doubt :P But understandably doesn’t have a huge absolute impact on overall European metrics.

[alex-korr]

Or the LA County

[piva00]

But that's moving the goalposts, Europe has a bunch of countries with small populations, Sweden is 16th in population from 40+ countries. Aside from Germany, Italy, the UK, France, Spain and Poland all the other countries will hover +- ~10 million people compared to Sweden. It's smack in the median of population size in Europe.

[spaceman_2020]

In all fairness, Sweden isn't exactly doing remarkably well either. It's fertility rate is still well below replacement level. It's still in terminal decline. Just a tad slower than its peers.

[oezi]

What is the difference between decline and terminal decline?

[renewiltord]

No. The US does not have high fertility. If the nation does not import labour or perform massive automation it will face a massive problem.

The present phenomenon where unions and local power groups can extract massive rent is coming to an end.

America will fracture unless she accelerates. San Francisco is the earliest example of that.

The old must die or make way and they are not.

[poulsbohemian]

>Outside of Peter Zeihan...

Talk about a weirdly polarizing figure. He's like a clock that's right once per day. Every time his name comes up here on HN, it's a flame war. To reinforce what you state though - at least he raises some interesting topics for us to all discuss.

[ShuffleBoard]

Peter Zeihan is basically always right in terms of first principles. Where there is time & opportunity for others to course-correct is where I've seen most of his predictions go awry.

A great example is the price cap -- enacted via insurers -- on Russian oil, which was a remarkably creative measure. PZ was spot-on about the precursive factors, specifically a) that insurance concerns dominate global shipping, and b) that the world was in for some serious pain if Russian oil stops abruptly.

[stkdump]

Peter Zeihans insistance on birth rate is a bit silly. Most developed countries, including the USA are in the 1.5-1.7 range. There are outliers like France that are higher. There isn't this huge demographic difference between Europe and the US. He is selling his message to American conservatives, so I guess the one who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't think he cares about immigration much.

[spaceman_2020]

Can't disagree but the biggest target of his demographics argument is always East Asia, and the numbers there are truly dismal. S. Korea's latest numbers were 0.78. I really don't know how a population can ever recover from that

[oezi]

They easily could by actually putting in family friendly policies into place and abandoning the educational policies which turned childhood in Korea into a constant drill 24/7.

[dagmx]

> A culture that’s always willing to accommodate new people

What America are you talking about? Immigration to the USA has always been hard and a very contentious topic.

The previous president was largely voted in on his anti immigrant policy (both for legal and illegal immigration). We’re still undoing his damage to the immigration system today.

Prior to that, America has had a very fraught history with immigrants and abuse.

It’s not a culture that’s willing to accommodate new people. It’s a capitalist machine that sees new people as valuable buyers and workers.

Immigrants have always been treated as a form of cheap labor to import. Whether that was the boom of Italians or Chinese or Mexicans in the past. Then they’re immediately vilified after the work is done.

I think what the culture has in difference to others is valuing the results of capitalism more than anything else.

[STM32F030R8]

The last president ran on stopping ILLEGAL immigration. There was nothing stopping the continued legal immigration process to the US.

[xiphias2]

The way to stop illegal imigration is to legalize the status of much more hard working imigrants who deserve a good life and kick out people who are not hard working / law abiding immigrants.

Currently most of immigration works by enslaving the hardest working people for years by not giving them a chance for proper health insurance, bank accounts and a way to live peacefully just because they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line, it’s disgusting.

[buzzert]

> The previous president was largely voted in on his anti immigrant policy (both for legal and illegal immigration). We’re still undoing his damage to the immigration system today.

The Trump administration's H1B reform was focused on paying immigrants more money [0]. This did not have the effect of reducing high-skilled immigration, nor was it its intention.

> It’s not a culture that’s willing to accommodate new people. It’s a capitalist machine that sees new people as valuable buyers and workers.

The US is one of the few countries that accepts immigrants not based on education/skills merit[1] (except for H1B, which is largely gamed by Silicon Valley to acquire foreign talent). This is in contrast to Canada or Australia, where the only hope you have to immigrate to those countries as a national from a country with a very high volume of immigration (e.g., India or China) is to get an advanced degree.

[0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-announces-...

[1]: https://econofact.org/should-immigrants-be-admitted-to-the-u...

[pjc50]

Would you like to explain the link between the absolute number of people in a country and the value of its currency vs the dollar?

[dymk]

Not absolute number, but age distribution. One needs to have confidence that the country won't be facing major economic problems due to not enough young people to support an aging population - e.g. Japan.

[1980phipsi]

GDP will tend to grow faster if your population is growing faster (in capitalist, developed economies). On a second-order (or maybe 3rd-order) basis, GDP per capita will tend to be faster if your demographics are skewed younger vs. older. Regardless, faster growth rates tend to result in higher real interest rates. Higher real interest rates attract foreign capital, which tends to cause currencies to appreciate.

[jay_kyburz]

Declining birthrates will help us reach our emission targets. (Very Slowly)

[donkeyd]

> America, meanwhile, has decent native birth rate AND a culture that's always willing to accommodate new people.

And a society that burdens people with debt causing them to work every waking moment while avoiding costly things like health care, because they might miss a day of work or become even more indebted through the cost of said health care. People just pick up opioids so they can handle the pain and keep working two jobs.

I know hardly anyone in my country that works more than 40 hours a week. In fact, most people I know work 36 or 32. Two jobs is pretty much unheard of over here. I hear plenty of stories in the US though, about teachers working a second job somewhere else.

[Aunche]

America on the internet is different from America in real life. The Americans work 34.5 hours a week. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP

[hajile]

That number was 38.7 in 2021.

And of course, gender also matters here with men working around 40.5hr/wk and women working around 36.5hr/wk.

The real question is why average hours have dropped so much in just a year or so. The most likely answer has a lot to do with underemployment.

[donkeyd]

> America on the internet is different from America in real life.

Implying I don't know America in real life, never lived there, never visited and don't know actual people there. All not being true. I have zero friends in my home country who work multiple jobs. I have multiple in the US.

> The Americans work 34.5 hours a week.

In my country it's 32. So almost 8% less. Which I'd call significant if working hours is directly correlated to productivity as a country.

[alchemist1e9]

> And a society that burdens people with debt causing them to work every waking moment while avoiding costly things like health care, because they might miss a day of work or become even more indebted through the cost of said health care. People just pick up opioids so they can handle the pain and keep working two jobs.

In the bottom 10-15% of the society there is some truth to what you wrote. However are you sure you are comparing that with the same segment in your country?

[donkeyd]

> However are you sure you are comparing that with the same segment in your country?

Yes, I come from the bottom of society in my country. I grew up surrounded by people without jobs, blue collar workers and parents that worked in factory and hospitality jobs. Luckily, my country takes care of people in these situations, provides them affordable homes and health care and income and helps them to go to school without ending up with crippling debt.

[ryan93]

Not actually that common for teachers to work two jobs. Also most americans have healthcare and the ones who dont are often young and dont consume much of it. Not saying its good. But some europeans think we live in some kind of mad max hellscape.

[yardie]

> Not actually that common for teachers to work two jobs.

Yeah, the smart ones find a better school district to work in or leave the profession entirely. None of my friends in teaching are working 2 jobs. They can find a better paying non-teaching job, easily. Our son has 8 classes and 6 teachers. The school proudly announced at the beginning of the school year they were fully staffed. Currently they are at 85% with a revolving door of educators. We're in a HCOL city and school board is going forward with plans to build housing for teachers because they simply can't recruit them any other way.

[astrange]

> We're in a HCOL city and school board is going forward with plans to build housing for teachers because they simply can't recruit them any other way.

This is a good policy also found in safety-net-having countries like Finland.