Wouldn’t they benefit from more people? Of course it would come with the condition of learning the language at an acceptable level and that being tied to residency.
Oh boy, you need so much stellaris /s
The low birth rates are a concern because they need the bodies to generate revenue so they can take care of old people who will lean on government services.
Why should you care about population decline? Fewer people are good for the climate, but the economic consequences are severe. In the 1960s, there were six people of working age for every retired person. Today, the ratio is three-to-one. By 2035, it will be two-to-one.
Some say we must learn to curb our obsession with growth, to become less consumer-obsessed, to learn to manage with a smaller population. That sounds very attractive. But who will buy the stuff you sell? Who will pay for your healthcare and pension when you get old?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-globally-why-matters/
Ok, so what does that have to do with your question…
What age group tends to be the biggest voting bloc, the most xenophobic, the most nationalistic…? Old people. Get those foreign people off my lawn, keep those foreign drug dealers, thieves, and layabouts out of my country.
Then there’s exploitation of foreign labor to undercut wages and work rules of citizens of the country the labor is being imported into.
I’m sure there’s more, but basically it’s a hefty dose of xeonphobia and nationalism along with groups not wanting to literally lose jobs to someone who will do it for a lot less.
Xenophobia
Tldr:
Having too many cultures that have not established a “market share” in politics makes the, people who run a country, job harder as it has to contend with dealing with the potential of new cultures forming and the inevitable culture clashes that follow as differing values and ideals will demand different things.
It fractures and dilutes points of control which encourages politics to try ensure loyalty though aligning itself with views of the majority.
End tldr
Unironically, Stellaris is probably a decent example of the thought experiment played out. Unless a species is built with ideals of the intergration and/or has its proper foundation set then it can quickly spiral out of hand as you have to deal with " a hunded voices asking for one thing".
It is far easier to control and secure a foundational majority based off of one species as it can be more easily guided towards an established outcome.
Adding too many “outsiders” has the potential to cause an imbalance and a shift in thinking which then requires a new paradigm to “herd the sheep” as it were, while still trying to maintain a standard that the base species has become accustomed to.
If it not carefully controlled, it can potentially lead to a fracturing of opinion and thoughts which is a lot harder to manage and “guide” as one runs the risk of isolating one group and in doing so opening up the potential cascade of problems if the ignored minorities builds up steam which then forces leaders to contend with trying to figure out a way to maintain control over the many species bases while still doing it in a way that causes the least amount of disruption to their control.
Why should they? How about we just accept that a shrinking population is the best way to keep the earth sustainable?
Japan sure doesn’t have enough land to sustain everyone without global trade. When that global trade ends in a few years due to global food shortage, Japan is cooked. Better to reduce the population as much as possible until then.
Really into forcing your ideas onto others
Point out where in my message I am forcing my ideas onto others.
Your previous comment. I am sorry that wasn’t clear. Let me know if you need assistance on any other issues.
Similar to high turnover rate at major corporations is the justified fear that the current residents will be abandoned by their own government in an attempt to drive economic incentives
Unless the system is built correctly, you could accidentally drive people away because you didn’t build with your citizens best interests in consideration
For example Japan and South Korean (my heritage) has this exact problem still at large as they encourage people to have children yet systems like high working hours in combination with low wages means that people just can’t afford to have children
This is a part of the SNP’s manifesto already, FYI.
This is a gigantic can of worms that will cause arguments.
So basically the perfect question for the internet?
Basically every question
Why would you voluntarily create a job scarcity in your own population? Immigration reduces wages, increases prices, strains public services and causes overall decrease in Quality of Life.
Just look at the state of the USA with 28% immigrant population.
The immigrants were not the problem to get the US to the shit state it is in.
That is like saying there is an inverse correlation between the decline in sea-faring pirates and the rising global temperature. Duh.
techically the US is like 99% immigrants
Same for most other American countries
Immigration reduces wages, increases prices, strains public services and causes overall decrease in Quality of Life.
So, you’re telling me that immigration is super profitable? Because that’s a recipe for profits
Yes. It is profitable for big corporations. Is this news to you?
Just look at the state of the USA with 28% immigrant population.
Which STILL has the 6th highest GDP per capita (10th if you count tax-haven microstates and overseas territories).
Centuries of mass immigration built the US economy. Y’all are acting like economics is all zero-sum and more people = everyone is poorer, but the amount of jobs doesn’t stay constant as the amount of people increases. The US always had an influx of immigrants to fuel the ever-growing economic machine.
There’s plenty of reasons why a lot of people in the US can’t afford to live in cities, etc. None of it is because of immigration, it’s mostly corporate greed and stupid zoning laws.
This still won’t apply to most low birth-rate countries like Korea and Japan, where the population densite and job scarcity is already too high.
Xenophobia and racism, mostly. And yes, it’s a solution to the aging demographic crisis many countries face (at least in the medium-term).
I remember seeing a video of a presentation back in the Bush years by some neo-con group that advocated for immigration to Pentagon or DoD officials or something. The argument for immigration was mostly the same: we have an aging population, so we could integrate immigrants (who are statistically younger) to solve this issue. I didn’t agree much with the broader idea of the presentation though. The broader idea was that there were still some parts of the world not a part of the global U.S.-led hegemony (mostly the middle-east and Africa), and we must spread democracy and capitalism to them. The argument was that globalism/capitalism ensures peace, and that both WWI and WWII happened because globalism was falling apart shortly before those wars. So, to ensure world peace, we need to globalize the entire earth and bring all countries into the the U.S.-led hegemony, even if that means starting wars to spread democracy, lol.
Good write up! My version was much snarkier.
But other factors include
- not every country can encourage significant immigration
- even developing countries have a rapidly dropping birth rate
Some countries, maybe like Japan and South Korea, have low birth rates and a history of discouraging immigration. I’d argue it’s too late for them: you can’t suddenly develop and support a large wave of immigration, especially when most developing populations are doing better, most are seeing lower birth rates. They have a lot of work to do and little chance of succeeding
Other countries, notably China, have a rapidly declining birth and already see the impact, so are just going to discourage emigration. The supply of immigrants will quickly dry up (except refugees)
So for example, the US has a history of significant immigration. We’re already in the scenario of insufficient birth rate to sustain our population but sufficient immigration to keep growing. Maybe I don’t know enough about other countries or I’m falling to some sort of exceptionalism, but to me this boils down to why doesn’t US encourage immigration. We have the easy case: if we can’t figure it out, how can we expect anyone else to.
Their bigots will throw a tantrum
You have to feed and house the people. The people currently living in those countries may have a shortage of housing already.
I think the “baby boom” from years past has shown that there are too many people around. It’s too costly to raise their own kids. People are xenophobic and don’t want many immigrants changing their cultures.
The issue becomes caring for the boom population and maintaining a stable economy at the same time. Immigration is a natural support to the pressure of worker shortages, and countries that don’t accept this will learn long, hard lessons in capitalism, and pay a premium for end of life care to compete with other jobs in demand that are much more desirable.
Fear of being outnumbered by immigrants (“they shall not replace us” bullshit) is a big one.
“We cannot be outnumbered by immigrants!” *die out because their own population won’t make babies*
Xenophobia propped up by political groups. Many official immigration programs existed in the 19th century that, when allowed to, had immigrants integrated into society.
Because racism
