[Ibon]

BTW: it's a disgrace anyway that you pay 3rd world wages for operating a 1st world tourist destination. Have the decency to pay 1st world wages when you provide a service to 1st world clientele.
There's no labor shortage. Pay more and you get all the help you need.

We are doing pretty much what you propose. Our staff are the envy of the remote area where we are located because we pay about 20% higher wage as well as other benefits above and beyond the local pay. My main problem is not pissing off the neighboring land owners.

So we are in the unique position of charging 1st world prices while paying 20% above 3rd world wages and looking virtuous while doing it with the most loyal employees to boot.

I am sorry if this pisses you off !

Maybe you need to sharpen your entrepreneurial skills a bit

[Pops]

Every year hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs, with good benefits, vacation etc are sent overseas.
Anywhere from 200-500k per year gone for good. For decades. Millions of good jobs cumulative.
And how do the republicans, friends of the middle class, punish corporations?
Give them a 50% tax break

There are around 200k h1b visas for field work and construction etc per year. These are good for 3 years so 600k crappy jobs that employers have to jump through tiny hoops to fill because there is no one to do the work. The pay is exactly the same minimum wage as spitting in Big Macs but you will not see one lily white hand in the field cutting lettuce or running a manure spreader, ewww!

Actually there are about 6 times as many H1b visas as there are H2a ag visas granted each year— these are high skill high education employees, not unskilled farmworkers. Don't hear much about those evil immigrants taking ACTUAL good paying jobs, again there is a high demand for these positions and no one to do them. But they also aren't predominately Mexicans either so not as easy to push the buttons of the base.

Didn't mean to get off on this tangent, but it does go to show where the nativist thinking is.


https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-imm ... lQEALw_wcB
https://www.epi.org/publication/tempora ... ification/
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-wor ... fisheries/

[diemos]

Without young people to pick lettuce and pay SocSec tax and be tomorrow's consumers there will be a forced degrowth, otherwise known as deflation, permanent recession.
.

If lettuce can only be profitable with slave labor then we don't need it.

[Newfie]

For sake of clarification lets assume human population will eventually drop to say 5 billion. Is it better to drop from 8 billion than from 10 billion? Assume that the drop in either case will be from famine, disease, and war; fairly miserable ways to die.

What matters is the reason for the drop, you assume it is excess deaths but that's not what's happening right now and likely not going to happen.

The collapse that IS in fact happening is voluntary, it is in births not deaths.

U of Washington study in the Lancet estimates total fertility to be 1.66 in 2100. That is Extinction level.

Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth. A sustained TFR lower than the replacement level in many countries, including China and India, would have economic, social, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. Policy options to adapt to continued low fertility, while sustaining and enhancing female reproductive health, will be crucial in the years to come.

BBC puts it this way...

Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

"That's a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline," researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.

"I think it's incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it's extraordinary, we'll have to reorganise societies."

So, what IS happening is the opposite of your stance, populations are getting older, dying of natural cause, and by the middle of the century it won't be billions of starving it will be billions of old farts without enough young people to support them.

In the US our population is already shrinking without immigration. Why do you think the Ds are the party of immigration? Without young people to pick lettuce and pay SocSec tax and be tomorrow's consumers there will be a forced degrowth, otherwise known as deflation, permanent recession.

Not surprisingly the NEW republicans are on the wrong side of that bit of history too, playing to the outdated notion of old whites that immigrants take their jobs— when in fact they do jobs whites will no longer do, if there were enough of them to do it. OLD Rs of the Chamber of Commerce wing realized the threat to their wealth and power with depopulation, degrowth, etc. They paid lip service to anti-immigrant jingoism while protecting the employers (including themselves of course) from the greater harm of losing their drones. I've said many times the white 'nativist' party (and yes I use that term advisedly) will eventually be replaced by their offspring — with slightly more "color" in their cheeks. Nigeria will become the second most populous country in the world. Can't hold back the tide.

My personal view is degrowth in such a way is preferable to resource wars — although such a big upheaval will certainly instigate something similar. We are experiencing the beginning now in the global white reactionary wave. More to come.

.

Nope, you completely missed the point.

[Newfie]

The growth rate has been falling for 50 years, which is kinda my point.

What point?

Population is still increasing, and much faster (less drop) than was predicted just a few years ago by the UN.

Look at the below and do some math. Plot the available carbon per person every 10 years from now to 2100.




Except you cant, cant divide zero by anything.

Which means we shortly will have no carbon budget to divey up. Which means either mass starvation or we completely ignore the climate consequences of carbon usage which will basically destroy the worlds ability to house humans, which will mean mass starvation.

Box canyon, no way out.

Except for climate deniers. LOL.

[AdamB]

So no...throwing big money and benefits around didn't find me more than 35% of what I needed. Imagine that! I found it quite surprising at the time. Now I expect it.

You have to pay more than what they currently make.

So the ones making half of what I was offering, you are saying it wasn't enough of a bump? The ones that weren't currently employed, just figured that an order of magnitude salary increase wasn't worth their time? The newly graduated students, you think that a 6-figure salary just didn't cut it?

Sure sounds to me like you angling for a case of misguided expectations.

That has nothing to do with 6 figures.

It certainly does, when compared to their prior compensation. I said it before, I wasn't offering part time, low wage, can you fill in for someone on vacation money and benefits, I was offering career employment. In todays world of part time consulting, jobs that don't take advantage of one's education and experience, and are subject to being cut at a minutes notice, that is something.

Big silicon valley trick. If they guy makes $150k currently, offer $200k, not $100k.

See what they were making prior to my offer above. None of them were within 50% of what I was offering, and I wasn't hiring for mid and early career folks, I was hiring folks who had newly minted degrees, generally in their early and mid-20's, some being underutilized and they knew it. Job hopping wasn't what was going on. Maybe Silicon Valley startups like the equivalent of short timers bouncing between companies, that isn't who I work for, and wasn't what I was looking for.

[AdamB]

Except you cant, cant divide zero by anything.

Which means we shortly will have no carbon budget to divey up. Which means either mass starvation or we completely ignore the climate consequences of carbon usage which will basically destroy the worlds ability to house humans, which will mean mass starvation.

Box canyon, no way out.

Except for climate deniers. LOL.

Humans have already made the choice to adapt, as opposed to take action to reverse our wholesale pollution of the biosphere. They may not have reached it in a conscious way, but by their choices (from procreation to consumption to voting) announce their intent daily. And the chart of atmospheric CO2 atop Mauna Loa records the daily result of but one of our collective decisions. I'm good with it, in the same way I'm good with any individual's mortality. None of us gets out of here alive, it is only a matter of how, and when. Our insistence on fouling our nest strikes me as silly, but it is what we have chosen to do, come hell or high water. So adaptation it is, with everything that entails. Smoke'im while you got'im!

[Pops]

Population is still increasing, and much faster (less drop) than was predicted just a few years ago by the UN.

Global population will continue to increase until the global rate falls below replacement, I didn't say it wouldn't, so that is a strawman.

The UN revises their africa guess routinely because they routinely guess wrong. It would be nice if you used citations so we are talking about the same thing.

But maybe the UN is just as wrong on everything as they are wrong on Africa:

Global population growth may peak sooner than expected if the lot of women continues to improve, according to a study that says the world’s population could be 2 billion below UN forecasts by the end of the century.

...The world’s population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064 and decline to 8.8 billion by the end of the century, according to research led by the University of Washington in the US and published in the Lancet.

It says some countries, including Japan, Spain and Italy, will see their populations halve, while sub-Saharan Africa’s population will triple in the next 80 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... y-suggests

And I know you like Limits:

Jørgen Randers, one of the authors of the seminal 1972 long-term simulations in The Limits to Growth, offered an alternative scenario in a 2012 book, arguing that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers' "most likely scenario" predicts a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B8rgen_Randers

To get back to my original point, degrowth is going to happen because depopulation is going to happen. That isn't a question. It is in a fact happening in the US right now:

The TFR has declined in the United States from 3.5 births per woman at its peak in the 1950s to a record low of 1.71 in 2019.
...A major new study published in the Lancet projects that the TFR will continue to fall in virtually all nations around the world and that it will stay far below the replacement rate in most advanced economies, including the United States. The authors project that the intermediate, “reference scenario” birth rate in the United States for the rest of this century will be 1.53, far below the assumptions of the OASDI trustees, the Census Bureau, CBO, or the Population Division. The lower-range TFR estimate by the authors for the Population Division is 1.40 births per woman, a rate already breached on the downside by such major economies as Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Taiwan.

..According to the [United Nations], 27 countries or areas have already experienced population declines since 2010, most notably Japan. That number will increase to an estimated 55 by 2050, including China. Australia, Canada, and the United States
https://www.mercatus.org/publications/t ... %80%932000.

So again, my point is the die-off is well underway, and people need to adjust their thinking, or not I guess.
People are growing old and dying and not being replaced. Degrowth aka recession, depression, deflation is either arriving soon or already here so its advocates should rejoice!

I'd say prepare for deflation, asset decline, a slowing of the "velocity of money" which is where people hold on to whatever cash they have because it is getting more valuable as their homes, stocks, bonds whatever, gets less so. The only thing preventing it now is unlimited printing and 0% interest.

[AdamB]

So again, my point is the die-off is well underway, and people need to adjust their thinking, or not I guess.
People are growing old and dying and not being replaced. Degrowth aka recession, depression, deflation is either arriving soon or already here so its advocates should rejoice!

Not fair!!!! If there isn't a decent doom involved, what fun is it?

PS: I learned this one from peak oilers, when Amy Jaffe began discussing peak oil demand about 6 years ago now. The reaction was hysterical. "Peak demand? What? WWHHAAAAAAAA....how can I configure that into my doom fantasy league play? I want my doom!"

Doomers gotta doom.

I'd say prepare for deflation, asset decline, a slowing of the "velocity of money" which is where people hold on to whatever cash they have because it is getting more valuable as their homes, stocks, bonds whatever, gets less so. The only thing preventing it now is unlimited printing and 0% interest.

How dare you not include the Amero, MZBs, the best way to build homemade claymores to defend the Doomstead, the tastiest MREs, and where to bury PMs in the desert to be used in the post-apocalyptic Mad Max land! Run of the mill financial consequences...please!!!

[Pops]

The only thing preventing it now is unlimited printing and 0% interest.

Oh, and immigration.

[Pops]

How dare you not include the Amero, MZBs, the best way to build homemade claymores to defend the Doomstead, the tastiest MREs, and where to bury PMs in the desert to be used in the post-apocalyptic Mad Max land! Run of the mill financial consequences...please!!!

Like we always say:
What goes on in fight club stays in fight club!

LOL

[Pops]

Look at the below and do some math. Plot the available carbon per person every 10 years from now to 2100.

You do the math:

Average carbon per American is 16 tons (quick search)
The average carbon per person in the world is 4 tons
Africans? Nigerians are the worst at .49 tons, Chadians emit zero

You're worried about African babies but Africans aren't the problem wrt GW, rich country's babies are. The richest countries are the polluters and their birth rates are already declining, below replacement in many rich countries. So really population isn't the problem at this point, let alone Africa's population, politics is.

The politics of GW and the entrenched money that pays politicians to call GW a Chinese Hoax and block, in fact repeal, any effort to change course as happened the last 4 years is what you should be railing about if you are worried about GW. I linked a study elsewhere that showed republican voters are for spending money to fight GW, and 2/3 believe RE should be expanded but they are told daily by their bought and paid for "representatives" (representatives of the FF industries that is) that GW can't be real because look how cold it is in the winter.

If you want to do something about GW, promote women's education and birth control and vote out republicans who defend global warming
.

[diemos]

Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives?

Enjoy the unregulated free-market paradise of Somalia.

In the real world collective problems almost always require collective solutions.

[Ibon]

Without young people to pick lettuce and pay SocSec tax and be tomorrow's consumers there will be a forced degrowth, otherwise known as deflation, permanent recession.
.

If lettuce can only be profitable with slave labor then we don't need it.

What about that cup of coffee you drink in the morning?

[AdamB]

Can't you guys ever come up with solutions that don't involve government controlling every aspect of our lives?

Enjoy the unregulated free-market paradise of Somalia.

I believe there is a difference between governments that don't control every aspect of our lives, and those that control none. So, your comparison is a sort of apples to oranges sort of thing.

In the real world collective problems almost always require collective solutions.

Sure, I can go along with that. The devil, as usual, is in the details of what even a collective problem might be (unarmed citizens who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety, for example) and an acceptable solution (firearms training and safety classes in all schools between the ages of 12 and 18 to prepare future citizens for their civic duty in this regard).

[Newfie]

Look at the below and do some math. Plot the available carbon per person every 10 years from now to 2100.

You do the math:

Average carbon per American is 16 tons (quick search)
The average carbon per person in the world is 4 tons
Africans? Nigerians are the worst at .49 tons, Chadians emit zero

You're worried about African babies but Africans aren't the problem wrt GW, rich country's babies are. The richest countries are the polluters and their birth rates are already declining, below replacement in many rich countries. So really population isn't the problem at this point, let alone Africa's population, politics is.

The politics of GW and the entrenched money that pays politicians to call GW a Chinese Hoax and block, in fact repeal, any effort to change course as happened the last 4 years is what you should be railing about if you are worried about GW. I linked a study elsewhere that showed republican voters are for spending money to fight GW, and 2/3 believe RE should be expanded but they are told daily by their bought and paid for "representatives" (representatives of the FF industries that is) that GW can't be real because look how cold it is in the winter.

If you want to do something about GW, promote women's education and birth control and vote out republicans who defend global warming
.

Your response has nothing to do with my post or reality.

It seems you are a climate denier or have no understanding of the issue.

[AdamB]

If you want to do something about GW, promote women's education and birth control and vote out republicans who defend global warming
.

Your response has nothing to do with my post or reality.

It seems you are a climate denier or have no understanding of the issue.

Oh, it sure seemed like Pops had a handle on the population angle thing, and its relationship to CO2 emissions. And that rather than accept or refute the facts involved, decided to dismiss it out of hand for some reason. And then called him names!

To summarize, Pops demonstrated that rich folks not breeding at a replacement rate is a form of natural dieoff. Stretching the point and denigrating the Raqpture event style dieoffs favored among doomers, but it was a valid claim. And all the 3rd Worlder types not emitting much CO2, yet breeding like rabbits, also seems like a reasonable point. And the math between non-emitters breeding more non-emitters, and non-breeders emitting more CO2 but dying off, are two equations from which a future CO2 emission pattern could be developed.

Can't say I care what the answer is, but those two equations interacting does seem like a reasonable point. And demonstrates an understanding of the issue (maybe not the issue you want to admit is reasonable) to boot!

I like the entire "dieoff that isn't really" concept, and one that Hans Rosling gives fantastic presentations on. His schtick during a lunchtime talk is as good as Harold Hamm's.

[Pops]

Your response has nothing to do with my post or reality.

It seems you are a climate denier or have no understanding of the issue.

That's your argument?
Add homs.
Nice.

[Newfie]

I think my above response needs a little more definition.

The point I have been making is that
1 We have a UN defined Carbon Budget that shows we need to go to zero carbon in the near future or we will surly engage tipping points.
2 We have a UN defined human population projection that shows population increasing through 2100.

No one has explained how we are to he able to support the projected population while at the same time going to zero carbon usage within a couple of decades.

Therefore we face a string population die-off or a strong carbon budget overshoot which will eventually lead to a strong population die off.

Mindless railing about old fat white Republicans is both bigoted and racist and does nothing to forward any logical discussion. The existing political system is not serving humanity well and is contributing to our downfall.

We need to elevate the conversation past Junior High levels.

[Pops]

We need to elevate the conversation past Junior High levels.

So no ad homs?