EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 935
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 05 2017 14:35 Simberto wrote: I don't think "raising birth rate" is a long-term solution to anything. The earth might already be overpopulated, and it definitively can't deal with a constantly increasing population forever. But in our current retirement system, each generation pays for the retirement of the previous one. Which is fine as long as you have increasing population, but becomes harder when you have increasing retirement time and decreasing amounts of people paying for it. I'd say we need a fix for that structural problem. Something along the lines of having each generation pay for their own retirement is a lot more stable in this regard. The problem with that is that a) you need to squirrel a lot of wealth away, which might not be ideal for the economy, and b) one generation has to bite the bullet and pay for both their parents retirement and their own. (I have a suspicion that that is going to be my generation), which is not something that you can politically sell to them. But there is a big difference between an increasing population, and a rapidly decreasing one. In order to simply get to replacement (2 children per woman) germany would need to increase its birthrate by some 35% which does constitute a massive change in my book. It's not just about pensions, its about ensuring that the next generation get to grow up in a functioning society. Both societal and economical dynamism to some extent requires young people, not to mention the quality of life aspect that comes with not being surrounded only by retirees. As for over population, as for overpopulation, (1) birthrates are falling fast globally and (2) if investments in renewables and recycling dont pay off soon we probably have bigger problems anyways. But again, successful integration of people who want to immigrate is equally important. As an anecdote a friend of mine (phd in physics from a top3 american research institution) wanted to move to europe to be closer to boyfriend. She applied for 25 jobs in sweden and germany and got 0, presumably because hiring non europeans is a hassle, and her qualifications didnt look exactly they way conservative euro corps expected. (In the end she got a job at a startup whose owner saw her at a conference.) Like the primary thing holding back growth and prosperity in countries like sweden and germany at the momnent is lack of skilled labour, i dont understand why we refuse to deal with that, either by birthrates, or integration of migrants. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
More rural areas tend to produce more babies. Religious tendencies help as well in the absence of better options. Having a hard-on for "fuck those rural folk" and "just get used to renting not owning" and other megalopolis favored statements is doing precisely the opposite. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 05 2017 16:07 LegalLord wrote: Big city live in general has a tendency to price people out of the babymaking market. I mean if you have child-bearing subsidies it definitely can help. But that won't erase the fact that living in a big city and having more than like 1-2 children is a vow of poverty. More rural areas tend to produce more babies. Religious tendencies help as well in the absence of better options. Having a hard-on for "fuck those rural folk" and "just get used to renting not owning" and other megalopolis favored statements is doing precisely the opposite. And we are paying rural areas a ton of money already to be competitive, in the form of federal subsidies, farming subsidies, roads and trains, state institutions and much more. But if the best you can do is go back after university and become a teacher then it is not very attractive. And obviously we pay all of that from taxation on work only. Maybe if we found other forms of funding than taking money from those going to cities to find work to pay for everything you country does your city people might actually get some babies too. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 05 2017 16:15 Big J wrote: But if the best you can do is go back after university and become a teacher then it is not very attractive. Yeah, that much is true. Incidentally, over here in the US, the most significant state that actually does production for NASA and the space industry in general is Alabama, solidly in that much-hated Deep South. And an oft-cited adage around those parts are "if you want a better life, you can either move to the big cities or go work for NASA." Moderate sized cities and rural areas close to significant city infrastructure are definitely better than whatever the fuck US/European megalopolises are. If housing is 20x the net worth of a grunt-of-the-line there's sort of fuck-all you can do about getting people to want to have kids. But if they have no better options anywhere then they are forced to live that grunt life. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On September 05 2017 16:01 Big J wrote: Can you go into specifics how you want to raise birth and integration rates? We have been trying that for years, we pay people for having babies, cut their taxes for having babies and many services are for free for children. We already have a huge system that is transferring money from the working people to babymaking people. How much more should people, who have trouble keeping their own living standard up, pay for other people's children? I dont really know, which is why i want there to be a political discussion xp. Im going to bed, but i'll try to have actual thoughts tomorrow. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On September 05 2017 16:23 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, that much is true. Incidentally, over here in the US, the most significant state that actually does production for NASA and the space industry in general is Alabama, solidly in that much-hated Deep South. And an oft-cited adage around those parts are "if you want a better life, you can either move to the big cities or go work for NASA." Moderate sized cities and rural areas close to significant city infrastructure are definitely better than whatever the fuck US/European megalopolises are. If housing is 20x the net worth of a grunt-of-the-line there's sort of fuck-all you can do about getting people to want to have kids. But if they have no better options anywhere then they are forced to live that grunt life. I'm curious, what do you define as "megalopolises" and how many are there in Europe compared to the US? And why do you consider them an issue in this context? I seem to have been taught a different definition of the term. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 05 2017 17:13 Ghostcom wrote: I'm curious, what do you define as "megalopolises" and how many are there in Europe compared to the US? And why do you consider them an issue in this context? I seem to have been taught a different definition of the term. No strict definition can be had simply by virtue of the fact that it is a very loosely used term. In the US, the regions I am specifically talking about are Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and any other cities of comparable density. In Europe? There's probably more of them by virtue of the fact that population density is much higher over there, but I won't pretend to know what life is like in every European capital because I simply haven't traveled enough to know for sure. The capitals of most old European nations qualify. For Russia, Moscow and Leningrad both qualify. Really, the primary concern that I would say determines that "megalopolis" title is whether or not populations are so tightly packed that life within that general metro area is so expensive that with a standard worker's salary, it is nigh impossible to live on much better than subsistence wages because any land is sold at such a premium that you wouldn't even be able to afford to rent the land on which to place your cardboard box to live in. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On September 05 2017 10:54 KlaCkoN wrote: Therefore it seems to me that the single most important question facing Germany if they want to remain a successful country where citizens can retire happily and well is how to massively increase birthrates. The second most important question is how to integrate noneuropean immigrants faster. The strange thing to me is that Germany is doing well right now so they have the time to think seriously about longer term questions and try to come up with solutions, but instead they dont seem to talk politics at all, as if nothing is going to change and time is frozen. It's so weird. I fully agree with your assessment, but I disagree with the "don't seem to talk politics at all". Part of the issue is that, due to the rise of the AfD, problems we have since a decade are now framed as "but the refugees" which takes time away from actual solutions. The basic problem Germany is facing is that, in my opinion, the solutions to a) integration and b) birthrates or rather more incentives and easier family founding need to come from the left side of the spectrum. The last massive reforms (which came from the left and were happily embraced by the right) in this regard made things arguably worse. Inequality is up, child poverty is up and there is no sign of any of these trends changing if we keep the current course. If you consider Linke/AfD as parties that are voted for by people who consider what's going on unsustainable, for various reasons, then we're talking roughly 20% according to current polls compared to 13.3% who voted for these parties in 2013. That's definitely a quickly growing amount of people who do have issues with current directions. Notably I'd suggest to not make the mistake and group the people who vote AfD into the same "semi-Nazi" group that vast parts of the party leadership belong to - after all there's a significant amount of people who jumped to the AfD from the far left. What you're running into however are also times in which all in all left parties (from whom I'd expect the most sensible solutions to issues caused by pretty much neoliberal reforms) are still having issues. Our social democrats have a good chunk of people who hold on to these policies (even if it costs them voters) and Die Linke, while having highly competent people within the party, is both continuously painted as an extreme even when they're not (this is in the interest of *all* other parties and gives them power) and they're also not making attempts to be clean enough about their extremist wings so that they get a better shot at appealing to the general population. On September 05 2017 16:01 Big J wrote: Can you go into specifics how you want to raise birth and integration rates? We have been trying that for years, we pay people for having babies, cut their taxes for having babies and many services are for free for children. We already have a huge system that is transferring money from the working people to babymaking people. How much more should people, who have trouble keeping their own living standard up, pay for other people's children? The basic issue we're seeing all across the globe is that the higher the living standard the more beneficial it becomes to invest less into children. They're not your primary source of pension, they're unlikely to die, cost more money than you get from the state (aka society) for having them and all in all kids (and especially more than 1-2) just become irrational choices. Now, obviously humans are unique in the sense that even individuals who choose not to have children can contribute to society, but all in all, from the point of view of society itself, investing into our offspring should be of the utmost priority. Whether that means more benefits for parents, education, health - all of these things have to be prioritized, even by those who decide to not have children but still be a part of that very same society. If I'm part of a club it's to be expected that I contribute to the primary goals of said club. When that club is your nation then not being interested in pushing resources towards other peoples children is an issue for the entire club. The question shouldn't be: How much more should people, who have trouble keeping their own living standard up, pay for other people's children? The question should be: How can society change and adapt so that people either have less off an issue paying for other people's children or that they are incentivized to have their own? People who have trouble keeping up their own living standard should a) not shoulder a majority of burdens and b) should be something that we need to aim to have less and less off. But again these aren't things you will see brought forward by more right-wing parties. Give it a decade of sticking with those and these types of issues might end up unfixable. For example in the current political climate of Germany every voter who jumps from the left side of the spectrum to the AfD hurts these parties much more than those who jump from the right side or center of the spectrum to them. That combined with the "both sides" narrative that all parties push massively benefits whoever has a majority, even if it's a small one. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In the latest twist to a divisive dispute that broke out two years ago when over a million migrants poured across the Mediterranean, the European Court of Justice found that the EU was entitled to order national governments to take in quotas of mainly Syrian refugees relocated from Italy and Greece. "The court dismisses the actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary against the provisional mechanism for the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers," the Luxembourg-based court said in a statement. "The mechanism actually contributes to enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the impact of the 2015 migration crisis and is proportionate." The programme set up by the executive European Commission was approved by majority vote of member states in the face of opposition from formerly communist countries in the east who said their societies could not absorb mainly Muslim immigrants. It provided for the relocation of up to 160,000 people, but only some 25,000 have so far been moved. Source | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Source other points include: - support for key business sectors including low carbon, screen, manufacturing and financial technology - record investment in the NHS and a pledge to lift the public sector pay cap for NHS and other public sector workers - doubling the provision of free childcare - tackling sugary and fatty food and drink | ||
|
Yurie
12084 Posts
On September 06 2017 17:36 Artisreal wrote: Scotland is trying to phase out petrol & diesel cars by 2032, 8 years before the UK's target of 2040. Source other points include: - support for key business sectors including low carbon, screen, manufacturing and financial technology - record investment in the NHS and a pledge to lift the public sector pay cap for NHS and other public sector workers - doubling the provision of free childcare - tackling sugary and fatty food and drink They actually worded it as vehicles. Which would be a much harder target than cars. A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum) is a mobile machine that transports people or cargo. Typical vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), aircraft and spacecraft. Though I guess aircraft and spacecraft weren't using them right now anyway. Many countries don't use them for trains or trams either. Buses are already seeing the shift. So that leaves watercraft and long distance trucks as the hard cases to solve, where there are already alternatives that are slightly more costly that you can buy right now. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 05 2017 16:23 LegalLord wrote: Moderate sized cities and rural areas close to significant city infrastructure are definitely better than whatever the fuck US/European megalopolises are. If housing is 20x the net worth of a grunt-of-the-line there's sort of fuck-all you can do about getting people to want to have kids. But if they have no better options anywhere then they are forced to live that grunt life. "megalopolises" are significantly better connected to the global economy, home ownership inflation is actually really bad and quality of life in cities is generally better. The US had this whole suburbia run in the 90s but even today that is turning around, in Europe it has never happened. There's basically no upside nowadays to moving into a rural area or a small town and most of them are essentially subsidised by the urban regions or they'd be long dead already(taking your NASA example, who pays for the agency?). The public infrastructure is usually bad and because they're building wide instead of high and like half of the average town consists of parking spaces. People having fewer children isn't bad either. If a family has one child instead of two they have more resources and time available and probably can get their one child up the social ladder more easily. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
Similarly fairly obvious points of contention can be levied against most of the rest of your post which is overly simplistic in its description of rural vs sub-urban vs urban life. (Take quality of life for example: It has pretty big geographic variations within Europe and things such as age and gender hugely impacts as well. Another point would be the higher life expectancy in rural areas compared to urban areas) | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10880 Posts
Living urban is awesome if you like it. Living in suburbia is just a shitty compromise. | ||
|
PM_ME_NICE_PUPPERS
Pakistan51 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QaMh1WT.jpg) User was warned for this post | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On September 07 2017 04:10 Nyxisto wrote: "megalopolises" are significantly better connected to the global economy, home ownership inflation is actually really bad and quality of life in cities is generally better. The US had this whole suburbia run in the 90s but even today that is turning around, in Europe it has never happened. There's basically no upside nowadays to moving into a rural area or a small town and most of them are essentially subsidised by the urban regions or they'd be long dead already(taking your NASA example, who pays for the agency?). The public infrastructure is usually bad and because they're building wide instead of high and like half of the average town consists of parking spaces. People having fewer children isn't bad either. If a family has one child instead of two they have more resources and time available and probably can get their one child up the social ladder more easily. I agree with everything you say, except for your stance that rural life isn't good. As you say it is heavily subsidised, so if you care about the things the rural areas produce (like local food, lots of car stuff, lots of space for sports...) and maybe grab yourself a job that is paid at city level as part of the subsidies, they're simply a great place. The main problem is that it is important, yet hard to get integrated, so if your birthplace doesn't happen to hold the right type of jobs and you can't create it yourself you will probably not end up making the effort. | ||
| ||
