The Russian Conundrum

[Random Guy]

Using the CDC, the total deaths for 2020 was 3.358M vs 3.605M briths, correct? A difference of about 250k excluding net migration (0.07% pop increase)? So, with net migration (~500k) total pop increase of about 750k?

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

Edited June 2, 2022 by Random Guy

[Random Guy]

I'm hesitant to go there but... let's tie these threads together (abortion, demographics) in the spirit of that guy's wacky briefing. 

 

Sometimes, when you talk with family offices or HNWI in New York, you will hear discussion of demographics and a need to increase the total number of balance sheets (people) who can take on debt, as that debt is required to sustain asset prices and consume real output produced. One of the subjects that has been talked about over the past 5-8 years is banning abortion & birth control. [economic] Liberals, aka Neoliberals, in both parties, are fearful of a world of negative population growth rates, as it can unwind asset prices and reduce relative power of asset holders (empty houses aren't worth anything, and, having spent 40 years moving households from gov retirement guarantees to private investment retirement plans which siphon management fees, households are reliant upon asset prices not falling to sustain consumption in old age). We need to 'recreate birth rates currently seen in Africa, which means reducing access to birth control and abortion', paraphrasing. 

This means an increase to population would occur in tandem with decreasing wages, that is, an overall increase in total output and productivity but a decrease in quality of life for all households (more children, more work, but less income, as household negotiation power is crippled by Fed wage inflation targeting +asset price backstops, and active gov support for anti-union and pro-monopoly policies). In such a world (!), as an asset holder, you want your local protectors of your accumulated private property (police) to be very well armed (ex: MRAPs). 

 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, Random Guy said:

Sometimes, when you talk with family offices or HNWI in New York, you will hear discussion of demographics and a need to increase the total number of balance sheets (people) who can take on debt, as that debt is required to sustain asset prices and consume real output produced. One of the subjects that has been talked about over the past 5-8 years is banning abortion & birth control. 

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any level of intelligence would think the US could put the genies of abortion or birth control back in the bottle.  High net worth or not.

I always assumed the "solution" was being carried out in our existing immigration "policies."  As in, regardless of what we say, the real policy is that the US will do next to nothing to stop illegal immigration, because the people with money and power don't want to take their hit to the balance sheet.

[Blue]

3 hours ago, Random Guy said:

Liberals, aka Neoliberals, in both parties, are fearful of a world of negative population growth rates, as it can unwind asset prices and reduce relative power of asset holders (empty houses aren't worth anything, and, having spent 40 years moving households from gov retirement guarantees to private investment retirement plans which siphon management fees, households are reliant upon asset prices not falling to sustain consumption in old age).

Have some loose ties to the Northern NJ area.  Seen it more than once: Boomers who started out in the 80s in NYC.  Rode the stock market up, and moved out to the open spaces of Northern NJ when they started families.  Built big, beautiful houses.

Now, 40 years later, those boomers are retiring.  The areas they moved into in the 80s have gone from open fields and quaint little towns to the land of endless big houses and continuous strip malls.  Some of those boomers want to sell their houses and cash-in/downsize, but they're finding "Dang millennials just don't want these big houses."  While it's probably more accurate to say "Those dang millennials can't afford to buy your house, much less pay the taxes and upkeep required."

I think we're seeing the end of the most recent "gilded age" in the US.  Not just an inevitable ebb in the ebb and flow of the economy, but a real, sustained period of excessive pain for everyone but those at the top.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Blue

[Random Guy]

11 hours ago, Blue said:

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any level of intelligence would think the US could put the genies of abortion or birth control back in the bottle.  High net worth or not.

I always assumed the "solution" was being carried out in our existing immigration "policies."  As in, regardless of what we say, the real policy is that the US will do next to nothing to stop illegal immigration, because the people with money and power don't want to take their hit to the balance sheet.

Well, it's a matter of if they have sufficient power to impose that condition on the population, not whether it's is desirable or not from the population's perspective. They will likely have sufficient power to successfully implement it, as the neoliberals hold the majority in both parties.