Worldwide Demographics

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Japan is by no counts near developing level. I don’t know where Crawford takes those ideas from.

Re-read my post. Salaries.

Japan has near developing world-level salaries. Very low salaries and resulting very low consumption. A professional in Mexico City now makes about as much as a professional in Tokyo.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Re-read my post. Salaries.

Japan has near developing world-level salaries. Very low salaries and resulting very low consumption. A professional in Mexico City now makes about as much as a professional in Tokyo.

I highly doubt salaries and level of comsuption is the same in Tokyo and Mexico City, a city with massive socioeconomic and infrastructure challenges that doesn't do well even compare well to other local cities (e.g. Monterrey), but I'll take your word on it.

Let's talk about very concrete and measurable things: life expectancy. The US life expectancy is way below of the ones of firmly developing countries like Chile. In fact, it's below countless developing countries. Should I jump to the conclusion the US is now a developing country or more precisely, is below several developing countries?

Japan is a full developed country and it's firmly up there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elopment_Index 19th highest HDI at 0.925 with a 0.27% yearly growth since 2010. The US is at 0.921 at 21st with a 0.10% growth.

When you take the inequality-adjust ranking, then Japan is doing even better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elopment_Index Japan with 0.850 (16th) and the US with 0.819 (25th).

And I'm only using the US as you keep (positively) comparing it with every other country. It's not me picking on the US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Let's talk about very concrete and measurable things: life expectancy.

No, I don't want to talk about that, as that's irrelevant. Has zero to do with why Japan's economy is failing. No one disagrees that Japanese generally live very healthy lifestyles.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Granted it's been a while since I was in Japan but can't imagine it's changed that much but they are not "borderline developing" but aren't the consumer culture like we are in the west. They are having a demographic time bomb and are no longer the economic juggernaut they were in the 80's when we thought they were going to take over the world one Corolla and Walkman at a time. Germany is growing like a weed and is the economic engine of the EU. Japan is being squeezed by competition from South Korea and China.

Japan is definitely nowhere near developing. Their infrastructure is far better than the infrastructure in the United States. But their economy has taken an astounding slide in the past 2 - 3 decades.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, I don't want to talk about that, as that's irrelevant. Has zero to do with why Japan's economy is failing. No one disagrees that Japanese generally live very healthy lifestyles.

We're discussing successful, functional societies, standards of living. Life expectancy is as important as economic factors, arguably more. Working, money, are only the means to reach a good, long, comfortable life, not the end on itself.

That's a very obvious thing.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, these are the reasons given for Canada's high intake of newcomers, which BTW doesn't just include immigrants under that specific program umbrella, but also temporary foreign workers, foreign students and even refugee claimants.

Now, Canada's demographic crash isn't a uniquely Canadian problem. Many other countries are facing it and indeed many many have even worse numbers than Canada. Some have found other solutions and others are struggling to come up with something to address the problem. The point is that not everyone is addressing it by bringing in historic numbers of people from abroad.

One of the generally unstated reasons for Canada's approach is that high population growth is a huge component of Canada's economic growth. More people coming in means more consumers which grows the economy. It's a fairly easy way to keep the economy growing, especially when one considers that Canada is a bit of a laggard in terms of productivity and innovation.

Call it an inconvenient Canadian truth. My favourite analogy is that it's like pouring gasoline directly into the carburetor to start your engine.

Agree on all points.

Frustratingly, the immigration debate often devolves into an all or nothing stance when it reality there are both benefits and drawbacks to high intake levels. The Feds did a poor job communicating the rationale for high immigration but they've also been rather reckless in the sudden large increases in the numbers approved each year.

It also bears mentioning that it will be politically difficult to drastically reduce immigration. Governments and segments of industry (which you allude to) have become addicted to the extra growth that high intake numbers produce. Despite spikes in Halifax real estate prices, will a province like Nova Scotia want the taps turned off? Probably not.

Economic theory suggests that there will be long term benefits to the Canadian economy from these high population growth numbers: larger tax base to fund infrastructure, better economies of scale in regions that lack it, increase capacity to further foreign policy objectives, etc. Most of these aren't things most Canadians care about but they aren't insignificant.

All in all, we're experiencing problems due to the sudden large increases in population but there's a good argument to be made that we'd be in a worse position 5-10 years down the road if we didn't boost immigration levels from those pre-pandemic levels. My issue has never been with the boost to numbers but how much they boosted it and how quickly they did it. 1.3 million annual growth from 400,000 just a few years ago? It's no shock we're having problems.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Agree on all points.

Frustratingly, the immigration debate often devolves into an all or nothing stance when it reality there are both benefits and drawbacks to high intake levels. The Feds did a poor job communicating the rationale for high immigration but they've also been rather reckless in the sudden large increases in the numbers approved each year.

It also bears mentioning that it will be politically difficult to drastically reduce immigration. Governments and segments of industry (which you allude to) have become addicted to the extra growth that high intake numbers produce. Despite spikes in Halifax real estate prices, will a province like Nova Scotia want the taps turned off? Probably not.

Economic theory suggests that there will be long term benefits to the Canadian economy from these high population growth numbers: larger tax base to fund infrastructure, better economies of scale in regions that lack it, increase capacity to further foreign policy objectives, etc. Most of these aren't things most Canadians care about but they aren't insignificant.

All in all, we're experiencing problems due to the sudden large increases in population but there's a good argument to be made that we'd be in a worse position 5-10 years down the road if we didn't boost immigration levels from those pre-pandemic levels. My issue has never been with the boost to numbers but how much they boosted it and how quickly they did it. 1.3 million annual growth from 400,000 just a few years ago? It's no shock we're having problems.

My guess is that all Canadian governments, including the hypothetical one of Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre, will no matter what resist turning off the taps for as long they can, until the pitchforks truly do come out for them.

I mean just look at Giorgia Meloni in Italy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Eventually even the population growing countries will have to deal with a shrinking population world. They don't exist alone on a vacuum, specially a mid-sized country like Canada. Our very economic system based on constant expansion will have to fundamentally change. Societies that adapt better to this new logic will be the winners. Population shrinking won't go anywhere. We already bought it. It will be our reality for this entire century.

To me, the smartest way is to copy or develop new models for this new world. I've always worried about population shrinking and the ways to stop it, but I realized eventually that's either useless or too late. If societies play the right cards, it won't be a tragedy. Right now we have examples of societies working with heavy population losses over a long period (Bulgaria, Latvia, Genoa, Galicia).

The highlighted is probably the most important point made in this discussion today, and sums up exactly what we've been talking about.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The highlighted is probably the most important point made in this discussion today, and sums up exactly what we've been talking about.

The problem is how to do it and change into what? I have no idea.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The problem is how to do it and change into what? I have no idea.

Also true. I am not even sure that a change is possible, and ultimately we may just end up running full speed into a brick wall. Of course, cataclysms are sometimes the only way to spark real change. It's almost a law of nature, isn't it?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Also true. I am not even sure that a change is possible, and ultimately we may just end up running full speed into a brick wall. Of course, cataclysms are sometimes the only way to spark real change. It's almost a law of nature, isn't it?

To me that's the strongest possibility.

That's why I mentioned Japan as one possible model: not because I'm one of those typical Japan-enthusiasts. It just seems they're dealing with this in an orderly way. And of course even Japan is on the very beginning of the process and things will change way more even there.

[Acajack]

Just saw this pop up on Twitter and thought of you, Yuri:

https://twitter.com/lafleurmtl/statu...854038/photo/1

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just saw this pop up on Twitter and thought of you, Yuri:

https://twitter.com/lafleurmtl/statu...854038/photo/1

This. Important for me, a Brazilian and for Americans, the large majority of SSP. We live in former colonial and slave societies with massive social issues, inequality and it's sometimes easy to forget of how many people are left behind when we're living our comfortable lives.

----------------------------------------------------

Back to this degrowth idea, one comparison with today's Japan, with all the good attributes we mentioned, could be Detroit region. I'm completely aware they're different things, but it's just to make us to think.

Detroit was once one of the world's largest cities and arguably the wealthiest and most productive spot on Earth. Their core might have as well nuked out of the face of earth, from a dense and wealth 1.8 million urban core to a 600k wasteland plagued by crime, poverty and economic collapse. Meanwhile, it suburbs kept growing and we have people living in ultra-low density suburbs 50km, 60km away from the former core, in a very wasteful suburban lifestyle and all problems attached with it.

US GDP per capita for 2023 according to IMF reached US$ 80,000 whereas Japan it's at US$ 34,000 due Yen devaluation (which has been extremely positive to Japanese industrial exports and corporations, with their shares reaching all-time heights). I need to check @dimondpark threads but I'd guess Detroit metro area might be slightly below the US average, somewhere between US$ 70,000-US$ 75,000 per capita.

I have no doubt, however, Japanese degrowth model has been much much healthier than Detroit's one. Economic and social stability, living standards kept in a very high level, rural, exurban and suburban areas emptying out while their big urban cores are stable served by the most comprehensive transit systems by far and all linked by the most efficient high speed rail system on Earth. Detroit on the other hand keeps demolishing its core till today while it keeps sprawling way into central Michigan; people using transit are counted on few hundreds, murder rates are insanely high, unemployment and endemic poverty are massive issues. Even weird phenomena like urban prairies and food deserts are problems.

The world will degrow. We can only choose how.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Back to this degrowth idea, one comparison with today's Japan, with all the good attributes we mentioned, could be Detroit region. I'm completely aware they're different things, but it's just to make us to think.

Detroit was once one of the world's largest cities and arguably the wealthiest and most productive spot on Earth. Their core might have as well nuked out of the face of earth, from a dense and wealth 1.8 million urban core to a 600k wasteland plagued by crime, poverty and economic collapse. Meanwhile, it suburbs kept growing and we have people living in ultra-low density suburbs 50km, 60km away from the former core, in a very wasteful suburban lifestyle and all problems attached with it.

US GDP per capita for 2023 according to IMF reached US$ 80,000 whereas Japan it's at US$ 34,000 due Yen devaluation (which has been extremely positive to Japanese industrial exports and corporations, with their shares reaching all-time heights). I need to check @dimondpark threads but I'd guess Detroit metro area might be slightly below the US average, somewhere between US$ 70,000-US$ 75,000 per capita.

I have no doubt, however, Japanese degrowth model has been much much healthier than Detroit's one. Economic and social stability, living standards kept in a very high level, rural, exurban and suburban areas emptying out while their big urban cores are stable server by, by far the most comprehensive transit systems and linked by the most efficient high speed rail system on Earth. Detroit on the other hand keeps demolishing its core till today while it keeps sprawling way into central Michigan; people using transit are counted on few hundreds, murder rates are insanely high, unemployment and endemic poverty are massive issues. Even weird phenomena like urban prairies and food deserts are problems.

The world will degrow. We can only choose how.

Detroit never had a degrowth strategy. The reason why it collapsed so terribly is precisely because they could not pivot from their Industrial Era growth model.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit never had a degrowth strategy. The reason why it collapsed so terribly is precisely because they could not pivot from their Industrial Era growth model.

That's precisely the point Yuri is making, no?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit never had a degrowth strategy. The reason why it collapsed so terribly is precisely because they could not pivot from their Industrial Era growth model.

Arguably Japan doesn't have one either. What I call "model" is not a designed strategy but simply how things have been developing there. A 30-year long low economic growth (and attention, low GDP growth, not recession), a shrinking population since 2010 haven't provoked any social or political convulsion nor deteriotated their high living standards.

And when we think of physical signs of population shrinking, we could say they have a perfect "smart degrowth" thing going on: they have this massive and very expensive infrastructure in place that won't be wasted, left to rust as it happened in the US cities. It will be heavily used for several decades to come despite the overall population shrinking. Shrinking is happening on the edges and this infrastructure is mostly serving the cores which are still stable or declining slowly and will remain so for a long time.

Japan tried to boost their fertility rates and overall failed: a small rise, but far away from be above replacement level (by the way, every society fail and probably will fail on it); they decided not to embrace mass immigration and they wouldn't be very attractive anyway. What's the option then? Accept population decline and adapt to it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's precisely the point Yuri is making, no?

That's probably what he meant, but not exactly what he said. I just wanted to make clear that Detroit does not have, and never has had, a "degrowth" model, aka sustainability. The most they've come up with are some asinine ideas to demolish the city and return it to farmland, while not addressing the unsustainable sprawl on the urban edge.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's probably what he meant, but not exactly what he said. I just wanted to make clear that Detroit does not have, and never has had, a "degrowth" model, aka sustainability. The most they've come up with are some asinine ideas to demolish the city and return it to farmland, while not addressing the unsustainable sprawl on the urban edge.

Their lack of a coherent plan is itself a "model". A horrible one. And as we'll see population shrinking everywhere on the next decades, we might have some models even worse than Detroit's or better than Japan's. Societies who decide to ignore this new reality are more likely to end up like Detroit.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Their lack of a coherent plan is itself a "model". A horrible one. And as we'll see population shrinking everywhere on the next decades, we might have some models even worse than Detroit's or better than Japan's. Societies who decide to ignore this new reality are more likely to end up like Detroit.

This is me being a little pedantic, but it wasn't a model with the objective of adjusting to a slower growing population. The past 50 years has just exposed their inability to adapt to a slower growing population.

I think there are plenty of U.S. cities that have successfully adapted to a slower growing population, but we just don't think of them as slow growing. Those cities are mostly located in the Northeast Corridor. Chicago has also adjusted better to a slower growing population than most of its neighbors, although Chicago's adjustment has been far from seamless.

[Crawford]

I'm not clear what Detroit has to do with Japan and demographic dip. Detroit is more or less at historic peak population, and will likely be a lot bigger 100 years from now. Japan won't.

Yes, the region is hardly the shining economic or demographic star of America, but it also isn't remotely in a planned shrinkage framework. No major U.S. metro, not even Pittsburgh, is really facing this.