Soup Lines Ahead? Bill Gross Speaks

[haha]

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Br...ember+2006.htm

The question is- is Bill Gross Ted?

Ha

[Nords]

Originally Posted by HaHa

The question is- is Bill Gross Ted?

Wake me up when we get to DOW 5000...

[TromboneAl]

I'll take clam chowder.

That's why we need plenty of immigrants!

I heard a radio program the other day that recognizes that to have a great economy you have to have growth and you have to have people to have growth. With a lot of the World's mature economies, countries will be 'competing' for immigrants, because their birthrates have shrunk to low levels.

It will be fun to watch the right-wing nuts wake up and realize this and watch them scramble to come up for another word for amnesty. I LOL whenever I hear Bush jr. talk about his 'guest worker program'

[uncledrz]

Originally Posted by TromboneAl

I'll take clam chowder.

Will play music for ....

[yakers]

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat

That's why we need plenty of immigrants!

I heard a radio program the other day that recognizes that to have a great economy you have to have growth and you have to have people to have growth.

Well, I follow that and that has been a classic element of economics for at least a couple hundred years now. Yet sometime it has to end. When you get 6B people in Los Angeles or Iowa. There is a limit on how many people the planet can support. It may not come for 50 years or 200, but it will happen. The world will get (through positive or negative means) to a point where the population hits a sustainable level and then there will not be population growth. There still could be economic growth through increased productivity but it will be a slower growth. And it will be (or at least could be if things don't reach a MadMax level of survival struggle) a decent situation on the planet.

I just suggest we get away from the idea that population growth will solve our problems. That may bring as many problems to our kids as it purpots to solve. Or you could say that for us though, growth is fine--after us the deluge?

[wabmester]

According to the chart in the article, the US demographic bubble in 2050 will be as troublesome as Japan's and Germany's are *today*.

Japan and Germany are probably the least immigrant-friendly countries in the world.* *And they spend much more on social programs than we do.* *Yet, no soup lines.* *Just slower economies and lower stock market returns.* *We'll probably see the same here when our time comes.

[2B]

In a few years we'll all be dead and the problem will be behind us. I'm not going to be around when "it" happens but China instituted a population reduction policy that was enforced by the government. China will have the biggest mess imaginable with a population imbalance. BTW -- that will coincide with China's supposed ascendancy as a world power in the mid-21st century.

[haha]

How about a pro-birth policy for the people who are already here?

Look how many talented intelligent people on this forum chose or choose not to have children. Having children should be made more attractive with incentives.

Ha

[wabmester]

Originally Posted by 2B

China will have the biggest mess imaginable with a population imbalance.* BTW -- that will coincide with China's supposed ascendancy as a world power in the mid-21st century.

Recent article in the NY Times indicated that China was already facing a shortage of workers in some areas. So, they outsourced manufacturing to India!

[2B]

Originally Posted by HaHa

How about a pro-birth policy for the people who are already here?

Look how many talented intelligent people on this forum chose or choose not to have children. Having children should be made more attractive with incentives.

Ha

We boomers are the first generation in history to be able to "choose" how many children we have. Having children reduces one's lifestyle and raises the cost of living. "Liberating" women further discourages childbearing because it's pretty hard for a woman to have a serious career with one child but approaching impossible with five. That's pretty well sums up why the "middle class" has reduced the number of their children.

It is also a recent development (last 300 years or so) that the richest, most powerful men don't have the most children. How many kids (and wives) do Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have?

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by HaHa

How about a pro-birth policy for the people who are already here?

Look how many talented intelligent people on this forum chose or choose not to have children. Having children should be made more attractive with incentives.

Ha

Sounds good to me. Laurence and I will let you know where to send the checks.

Seriously, I suspect that the way out lies in looser immigration rules. But we will see if that is politically acceptable. I will say that one of my goals in ER pretty early on will be to learn Spanish well enough to at least have a basic conversation.

Oh, and discount anything Bill Gross says by at least 50%. It is a safe assumption that whenever he publicly says something, he is either "talking his book" or trying to get more retail investors to buy more bonds (preferably via PIMCO funds).

[haha]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Sounds good to me.* Laurence and I will let you know where to send the checks.

Nope, as a 2x dad, I am exempt. You didn't think I woujld propose this if I thought I would have to pay did you?*

Oh, and discount anything Bill Gross says by at least 50%.* It is a safe assumption that whenever he publicly says something, he is either "talking his book" or trying to get more retail investors to buy more bonds (preferably via PIMCO funds).

Agree about Bill Gross. I just thought it was interesting, and that others might also find it interesting.

Ha

[LEX]

* I like the Canadian or Australian immigration programs: grow the work force through recruiting well educated skilled immigration on a world wide basis. The US is making a huge mistake that will create irreparable damage and class dissention by letting large unchecked numbers of peasant Mexicans sneak into the country. This import of the Mexican peasant class is an echo of the slave trade of three hundred years ago, and will recoil to injure the integrity of the US once these masses are able to use their numbers as a form of demographic occupying force to extract autonomy and power.

The better method (IMHO) is one where regardless of country of origin: take immigrants skill related applications, score and rank them on the basis of economic needs, and treat immigration the same way a business owner treats hiring in a for profit enterprise. The skilled, well educated immigrants are allowed in, monitored for self motivation and societal contribution, and then, on their individual merits, allowed residency.

[Gumby]

I think we'd be much better off if we treated the whole thing like a business, or a sports team.* We scout around for the best talent and get them on our team.* Of course this would also mean that we should be able to get rid of "Darryl and Darlene", the meth adddict high school dropouts who just happened to be born here.

[haha]

Originally Posted by Gumby

I think we'd be much better off if we treated the whole thing like a business, or a sports team.* We scout around for the best talent and get them on our team.* Of course this would also mean that should be able to get rid of "Darryl and Darlene", the meth adddict high school dropouts who just happened to be born here.

No, it doesn't mean that. Nationhood and citizenship stays as it is- you just use rational rather than irrational and ultimately destructive admissions policies.

I never thought of Lex's formulation- this is just a modern slave trade run by a class with* need for cheap uneducated disposable labor.

HA

[Gumby]

What is rational about keeping losers who don't contribute and are simply a drain on society, just because they happened to be born in this country? I would much rather have hard working, honest and sober "Jose and Lupe" on my team, regardless of their level of education or skills, than my hypothetical "Darryl and Darlene".

[LEX]

Social parasites and criminals should suffer certain consequences, no doubt.* That is the province of the criminal justice system. We deport them to prison. There are, however, a few points where the quality and values of an individual need to be examined closely.* One is the grant of immigration rights of any kind.* Here every existing citizen should be served by use of this delegated right being exchanged for someone who will justify their burden on the rights and resources of those who have their rights at stake as existing citizens, allocating their vested resources to support the invited foreign citizen who merits such allocation. Granting a work visa and allowing immigration is not any country’s democratic right owed to the world, (check and see as a US citizen to secure work in say France, Germany, Australia or Argentina). There must be selective, merit based and by any standard, discriminatory decisions made as to who gets into the US from the huge pool of prospective immigrants world wide.* Once they are here, and have earned the rights of citizenship, then they are blessed with constitutional protections and equal rights.* Prior to that judicial moment at the point of swearing their oath as citizens to accept and abide by the rights and responsibilities of* US citizenship in the naturalization process, foreign workers should be subject to deportation should they commit a felony or fail to meet the expectations of their work based visa.

[Gumby]

I have no problem screening people who want to immigrate and become American citizens. Those of us who are already citizens should have some say in whom we want to join us, and it seems quite reasonable to me that people should "earn" their citizenship. (on my more curmudgeonly days, I think that Robert Heinlein was right - only veterans should have citizenship).

But I question why you would not apply the same standards to native born Anglos. Why not make every 22 year old apply for citizenship and justify why this country should keep them?