Australia, Canada, UK in 2100

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

GDP per capita, hahaha

strip out natural resources and real estate and then we'll talk

Australia = top in coal per capita
Canada= top in gas and oil per capita
Seoul = top in training, expertise, hard work per capita

Koreans must work up to 60h/week and still have a lower GDP per capita than a French working 30h/work. Productivity much...

And Seoul gets few immigrants not because Korean restrictive migration policies. That's because places like Toronto, Melbourne, Los Angeles or Houston are far more attractive in the most different metrics.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I would expect South Koreans in Seoul would have higher educational attainment and productivity in the high tech economy vs recently arrived Central American immigrants in Houston or Phillipinos in Toronto, yes, isn't this obvious

Central American and Filipino immigrants play a role in those economies, performing jobs locals don't have interest on, while making things affordable.

In their way, they contribute to their new home while are living better than they were in their native countries. A win-win situation to me.

[The North One]

Maybe it's my perspective bias but I always felt like Canada was already bigger then the UK. The UK seems like it's just London while Canada has a good number of large cities.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by The North One

Maybe it's my perspective bias but I always felt like Canada was already bigger then the UK. The UK seems like it's just London while Canada has a good number of large cities.

Canada has 6 urban areas above 1 million inh. whereas Britain got 10, in an area 1/4 the size of Ontario.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Koreans must work up to 60h/week and still have a lower GDP per capita than a French working 30h/work. Productivity much...

And Seoul gets few immigrants not because Korean restrictive migration policies. That's because places like Toronto, Melbourne, Los Angeles or Houston are far more attractive in the most different metrics.

Samsung
LG
Hyundai
ships
chips
cars
engineering
computer science

vs

condos
coal
oil and gas

[Yuri]

Leaving aside the gross mischaracterization of Canadian and Australian economies, I fail to see why making cell phones are inherently superior to extract oil.

[muppet]

Korea May Need Up to 15 Million Immigrants, Study Says

[muppet]

The fate of S Korea is the same fate all Developed World nations face. The reason S Korea climbed out from poverty is not unique but only happens once -it got it's demographic age bulge sorted. Basically when a large population at a very young age gives birth to loads of children, but whom will grow up to have far less children themselves, if at all, or will delay their parenthood. This means a huge workforce suddenly reaching working age, with far fewer dependents for an extended time in their career -no kids to look after, no OAP's (because, remember their parents had them young).

In the US this happened with the Baby Boomers in 1945-64 (aka the Me Generation), in Europe it was Les Trentes Glorieuses 1945-75, Japan the Miracle Economy 1964-88.

China instated its own demographic dividend artificially with the One Child policy for its urban areas, reaping it with the China Rise 1980-2010 (the policy ended in 2017).

For the Asian Tigers of the 90s and 00s, that was S Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore - helped by their neoclassical (and interventionist) economic policies as well as age bulge, to weather the Asian financial crisis of 1996 scuppering the rest of the SE Asian economies.

One can also lose out with this generation, like parts of SE Asia (notably Thailand), scuppered by foreign meddling, war or overt politicking such as the Lost Generation of Latin America in the 70s and 80s, run by US-backed right wing juntas, or Eastern Europe dampened by Russian Communism. The Arab world (where some countries had over 50% children) just reached its own age dividend in 2010 -kicking straight off with the Arab Spring of 2011 with demands for jobs and an end to foreign-backed corruption, which can still go either way (Tunisia, Egypt, Arabia more successful than Syria or Iraq, riven by civil war).

The Indian Subcontinent (except for Pakistan) has just started theirs in the late Teenies with birthrates now below replacement and falling, at 2.2 per woman in India and Sri Lanka, 2 in Bangladesh and 1.8 in Nepal. Pakistan's is rapidly declining but still at 3.4. The generations following the current one looks likely for Africa, Pakistan and Philippines, for Indonesia and Iran the time is NOW.

[muppet]

In short after the dividend comes the years of demographic crash. To prolong the growth you can of course import more working age adults (that you didn't spend a penny on bringing up or educating) with fewer dependents -or at least the parents of them. This is the stage of immigration or robotisation. The former as seen in the West from the 70s to this day, and the noughties for the Gulf, the latter for Japan and now China, though both are now looking to attract working migrants alongside (as is S Korea). China now takes in hundreds of thousands of refugees and about 300,000 foreign born gaining residency, and far higher on work visas or illegal. Tokyo is opening up too, with 10% of those in their Twenties now foreign born, 550,000 in the centre and making up a quarter of growth.


In short a country's rise in power does not necessitate immigration, but it certainly helps when prolonging it. Basically immigration is a money-making exercise both long term and short term, and an economy needs to keep importing working labour, alongside young parents who'll have lots of children to boost the crashing birthrates (but kids who'll grow up to have far less kids themselves and pushed to succeed). Be wary of entrenched racism (a painful history doesn't help) though, that creates ghettoisation of poverty cycles as seen in the adversely different outcomes for Blacks in the US and those in Europe.

Immigration rescued the US in the 80s (after decline in the 70s) -15% of growth from then to now has been attributed to new migration. The same for Western Europe in the 90s onwards, after 80s stagnation. It says a lot that when Germany officially overtook Italy and Japan to have the world's lowest fertility rates (2017) was the same month it suddenly opened up to 800,000 middle class Syrian refugees.

[muppet]

This is a winning example of immigration and the 'brain drain' effect it has on the rest of the world (notably MIT, Silicon Valley etc), transplanting billions from what might have been a Chinese startup into a US one, employing thousands. This is what S Korea wants to attract, alongside low-skilled labour:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/21/t...uan/index.html

[Greavsie]

Originally Posted by The North One

Maybe it's my perspective bias but I always felt like Canada was already bigger then the UK. The UK seems like it's just London while Canada has a good number of large cities.

Eh?Canada may one day overtake the UK but presently Canada could add Australia,New Zealand and the republic of Ireland to its population and would be about as many people as there are in the UK.Maybe you just don't know anything about the UK.

[bossabreezes]

Interesting posts, Muppet.

Basically what it looks like is that the world is peaking currently in terms of population bulge, and will start declining relatively soon.

The implications of strong immigration magnets draining other countries is good for the receiving country but bad for the country who loses their natives. This will be very interesting to see what happens in the future, as immigration generally creates winners and losers economically.

[muppet]

Yep, brain drain.

Even though world fertility levels will fall, do bear in mind for all those current kids pairing up when they're adults, will still add on one or two kids on average, and their kids in turn will have one, all in the same lifetime.

This is why places such as India which has seen fertlility plummet to below replacement levels will still add on 400 million to its population through the 'decline'. Africa has not peaked (it's doing so now), even though its birthrates have also plummeted they're well above replacement still at above 3-4 kids per couple. Every continent in the world will be static or declining this century except for Africa. Note how North America and Europe will stay static despite low birthrates, thanks to immigration:



^Africa will likely become the centre for world population in the next century, Nigeria alone may even be approaching China's population (highest estimates at 930 million) but with a far higher amount of working age adults. The world's largest singular cities will also be in Africa:

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

in general, I think immigration-heavy metros like Melbourne and Toronto will underperform their size, versus those (like Seoul) that grow their economy from enrichment of their own human capital stock and wise corporate investment and government policy decisions.

In the US, you see this as Los Angeles and the heavy hispanic immigrant metros like Houston and Miami are not the major economic players their population size would indicate. Places like Boston and SF far outclass Dallas, for example in the more intangible metrics like R&D spending, laboratory space, % of workforce with advanced degrees, etc.

Toronto is successful because multiculturalism is a strength, not a weakness.

University of Toronto is one of the best universities in the entire world and is well known because of its international student body earning degrees for decades

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Samsung
LG
Hyundai
ships
chips
cars
engineering
computer science

vs

condos
coal
oil and gas

A lot of people have reminded you how sick they are of your distorted characterizations of Canada and Australia. There must be a reason for your dogged refusal to refrain from constantly bleating the same false narrative.

Your hatred for anything Canadian, as demonstrated by literally hundreds of posts, is quite pathological.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Wigs

University of Toronto is one of the best universities in the entire world and is well known because of its international student body earning degrees for decades

UofT is a very good school, but no, definitely not considered one of the world's best. It doesn't have the breadth of strengths of, say, University of Michigan, which is barely Top 25 in the U.S. Canada doesn't have the crap universities of the U.S., but it doesn't really have the other extreme either. More like a Germany, with a bunch of good schools, but no elites or garbage.

And of course it's incredibly diverse. Toronto is incredibly diverse and UofT is its flagship university.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

UofT is a very good school, but no, definitely not considered one of the world's best. It doesn't have the breadth of strengths of, say, University of Michigan, which is barely Top 25 in the U.S. Canada doesn't have the crap universities of the U.S., but it doesn't really have the other extreme either. More like a Germany, with a bunch of good schools, but no elites or garbage.

And of course it's incredibly diverse. Toronto is incredibly diverse and UofT is its flagship university.

I think the bolded depends on the list. U of M performs better on international rankings than it does on domestic lists, and that's probably because domestic lists tend to be stacked with liberal arts schools, as opposed to those with strong STEM programs.

[Wigs]

[The North One]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Canada has 6 urban areas above 1 million inh. whereas Britain got 10, in an area 1/4 the size of Ontario.

Right but they're nowhere near the size of London, after London the 2nd largest city's population jumps off a cliff while in Canada you have more evenly populated large cities and cities that have carved a place for themselves in the world so they're not obscure like Birmingham or Manchester. Which I feel like contributes to the illusion.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Greavsie

Eh?Canada may one day overtake the UK but presently Canada could add Australia,New Zealand and the republic of Ireland to its population and would be about as many people as there are in the UK.Maybe you just don't know anything about the UK.

I'm well aware what the size of the UK is, I'm talking about perspectives and feelings.