>

If you implement an immigration policy, you have to have a society that can receive and assimilate. The countries in the news are largely homogeneous ethnostates. Immigration in the scale needed would be counter to national policy
/u/Salt_Attorney (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Except you’re wrong 
The less money people have , the more kids they crank out .
Look at the inner  cities and rural Appalachia, 
Poor people have a lot of kids 
Unmarried single poor women have lots of kids . 
Middle class married folks have one or two , sometimes three . >

> The less money people have , the more kids they crank out .
Yes and the more money people have, the less kids they have. Statistically. But what you are missing is that here we are talking about money people work for and earn. The less money people earn with their work, the more kids they have, and the more money people earn with their work, the less kids they have. But now imagine a person does not earn any money through work. They simply have free time, and get paid by the governemnt a certain salary for no particular reason. You would see that the more money you give them, the more likely they are to have children. >


You would see that the more money you give them, the more likely they are to have children.

Do you have literally any evidence for that claim? >

Oh yeah .
It’s called welfare queens 
Welfare brood mares etc etc 
All you have to do is crank out a kid and not be married , and the govt hands over a pile of cash every month 
Free housing , section 8
Free healthcare 
Free food 
Free utilities 
Free internet 
Free Obama phones 
Free everything .
Unless she  is married , then you don’t hardly get anything . >

"Oh yeah definitely, source: my ass"
Is not evidence of a claim. >

Well, 
First, I don't think that declining birthrates are a problem on a planet with 8B humans.
But even so, benefits aren't enough to motivate people to have children. If you look at Japan for example, you have one of the most pressured, stressed and depressed society on earth. Who would want to raise kids in a country where kids have to work more than 12h a day just to avoid failing your studies and being considered a looser for life ? 
In their case, even if money wasn't a problem to raise kids, as long as their culture is that stressful and depressing, I don't think that birth-rates will significantly grow.
Add to this eco-anxiety growing worldwide, resources shortages being closer everyday, and I don't think you paint a beautiful future that motivate people to raise kids for. >


First, I don't think that declining birthrates are a problem on a planet with 8B humans.

It is when your greying population doesn't have enough young people to care for them and pay their pensions. >

Well, maybe you (generic you) shouldn't have designed the economy to be a pyramid scheme. >

Is that by design? I can't think of a society in human history which didn't have wealth inequality. >

Of course it is! Wealth inequality is exacerbated by the wealthy to get more wealthy, and that is certainly by the design of the wealthy.
But that's not quite the same thing as a pyramid scheme economy. Endless growth is not inherently necessary to support a population.
Both are features of capitalism. >

Maybe the problem isn't declining birthrates, but a global economic system that only functions in growth mode? We can't keep growing forever and we are already over using the Earth's resources. >

I am talking about specifically declining birthrates independent of the question if a society at a certain level of ressource consumption is fundamentally sustainable or not. >

You should have said you only speak about the hypothetical imaginary world and not our real one. >

That’s not a fair characterization. OP is talking about a specific problem that many people view as a problem and propose solutions for. They are proposing a way of solving the problem, not of restructuring society so that it isn’t a problem anymore. Arguing that it isn’t a real problem does not change whether or not the OP’s solution would have the effects that they are claiming it would. >


OP is talking about a specific problem that many people view as a problem and propose solutions for.

The problem in question cannot be divorced from the world. If the carrying capacity of a country is 10 000 000 people (determined by size, development, wealth, natural resources, hierarchical structures, etc....). And your birth rate has plumetted because you reached the peak with 9.5 million of people. 
Then no matter what short-term policies you implement. If they don't raise the cap on the carrying capacity. Increased birth rates simply won't happen. They reach 10 mil and then they start to oscillate up and down because 10 mil of people is about the maximum capacity you can reach.
OP refuses that argument which is where the discussion end.

OP’s solution would have the effects that they are claiming it would.

No, they won't. Because it doesn't change the fundamental problem that you can't grow forever. >

Source for any reasonably cited (proxy for acceptance by the field) academic paper in the last decade that suggests that overpopulation is an issue of any kind?
Birth rates are down for sure, but you're making an axiomatic claim that it is because earth is near it's "carrying capacity", which to my understanding is a problem framing that is widely viewed as far out of date.
Birth rates fall fastest in the countries most capable of sustaining their populations, not the least. That suggests very strongly that falling human birth rates in the modern world have nothing to do with overpopulation in an ecological sense.
If what you are implying were true, then there would be a negative correlation between things like starvation rates and population growth rates, but that correlation is positive. Countries with more starvation and lower life expectancies are growing faster. >


that overpopulation is an issue of any kind?

It's not about global overpopulation (in the sense that we are going to run out of space), but about actual carrying capacity of any given country. Imagine you are a poor country surrounded by rich countries. Even if the max pop capacity is 100 million, you will never reach anywhere close to that simply because you will bleed population to other richer countries. So there is realistically a threshold past which the population won't rise because those people have better opportunities elsewhere.
The short-term example is when there are too many dentists in the country. The new dentists won't stick around but go abroad where they get more paid. The long-term example of this might be that when there are too many people, the infrastructure gets too expensive to maintain, which if you don't have the economy to maintain will degrade. Worse infrastructure and a lot of people equals fewer jobs. That increases poverty. And with increased poverty FINALLY, you will start to see birth rates going up.
Birth rates are currently just a sign of economic progress (better economies and industrialization = lower birth rates). There are other factors, but by far economic progress is one is the most significant ones. >

You are making arguments for why poor countries should have lower population growth, which would have to be true if the ecology analogy held water as an explanation here, but then you acknowledge in the last paragraph and a half that poorer countries have higher population growth, which is correct.
For example, Somalia's population grows about 3% year/year, after accounting for emigration. The US, in contrast, has a population growth rate of about 0.1%, after accounting for immigration. Without immigration it would be negative, because we're at about 1.6 births/woman. Somalia is at 6.4 births/woman.
If you specifically want neighboring countries, Mexico has about 6X the population growth rate of the US after accounting for immigration/emigration.
Sure, highly skilled people in Mexico tend to move to the US, but not anywhere near enough to make up the gap in birth rates. Birth rates are the name of the game when talking about human population growth and decline, and they contradict this ecological carrying capacity analogy. >

It's not like governments haven't tried paying people to have kids. It doesn't seem to do much.

Germany's very generous paid maternity leave hasn't produced a baby boom, for example. Women want to work, Boling says, and many jobs pay more than any government fertility program.Japan is shrinking even after the government has tried to ramp up baby benefits. Same with Southern Europe.

and this

Now several other Finnish municipalities have also introduced baby bonuses ranging from a couple of hundred euros to €10,000.Still, despite these local incentives, Finland’s national birth rate is struggling. As in many other European countries, it has decreased significantly in the last decade: in 2018, it hit a record low of 1.4 children per woman, compared to the ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. Ten years before that, it stood at 1.85.Finland does have many strong family benefit programmes – among them the world-famous baby-box starter kit for expecting families, a monthly child benefit of around €100 per child and shared parental leave that lasts up to nine months with 70% of salary paid.

So it's clear that this doesn't work very well. People will always move the goalpost and say there needs to be more money, more money, more money. If they offered parents $100,000 to have kids, it still might not work even if it bankrupted the entire government. I think people just don't want to have kids for whatever reason. I think it's a combination of cultural factors and mental health issues.
There is, however, one thing that works very well - but you're not gonna like it.
The orthodox jews, the amish, and muslims all have very high birthrates. What do they have in common? Well, not much. But they do have patriarchy in common. You will shout that this is misogynist oppression. Some might say they're just cultures which enforce traditional gender roles. Regardless of how you feel about it, one thing is clear: it works. >

These examples are very different to my post because my post is about at least 10x the amounts mentioned here. I am taking about salaries for parents, comparable to a job.
> If they offered parents $100,000 to have kids, it still might not work even if it bankrupted the entire government.
You are thinking about this the wrong way. It is about redistribution, and hence can't bankrupt the governemnt. You take from the general popoulation and give to the parents, as much as necessary so people start wanting to become parents. I am saying that this is the best economic measure you can take. You just employ people to be parents, essentially. >


The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the average cost of raising a child to the age of 17 costs about $233,610 or about $14,000 per year.

Right now there are many European countries which pay parents annually  to encourage them to have kids, but it isn't doing much. Luxembourg pays parents $8700 a year, but their fertility rate remains a pitiful 1.37. Do you really think that doubling that or even tripling that would make a colossal difference? >

yes I absolutely do. 8500 Means you still have to work, probably full time. 20000 Means half time would be enough to live comfortably. >

Except these countries don't have the funds to do that >

The word is redistribution. If it is the #1 priority of the government to raise fertility in order to prevent an economic collapse over the next decades, than it is reasonable to invest money into that just like you would finance a war. You take drastic measures that put financial pressure on your population. But if it's necessary, then it is necessary. It is not that hard in terms of ressources for a first world nation to provide enough for a reproduction-stable amount of children to be raised. The ressources can be taken from the rest of the population. >

Wealth isn't zero sum, it can't be redistributed. You are destroying wealth, which makes the economy even worse >

This is a surprising statement for me, ive never heard someone suggest this, at least not in this form. >

A cattle ranch is worth what it is due to raising of cattle - subdivide it equally between the population and then you are left with parcels too small to graze a single cow. Not to mention all the people that just wouldn't utilize the land even if they had enough. Due to redistribution of the land, the only reason the land had value is gone, because cattle are no longer being grazed.
This logic can be applied to pretty much any industry
Wealth is created, wealth is destroyed. Wealth is not zero sum >

What you're describing is "seizing the means of production" destroying the benefits of economies of scale. OP is suggesting taxing people more, but reimbursing parents more. It does not directly disrupt the economy of scale. >


TL;DR: Give people enough money, they will be happy to have children. 

What're you basing this on?
Birthrate falls the more economically sound a country becomes, the more education and economic power women get, the birth rate drops. 
Women clearly have no interest in having more children -- because they stop having so many as soon as they have the economic freedom.
More economic freedom won't make more children, but fewer. >


But from an economical perspective, the whole country is doomed unless the birthrate issues are fixed

Just let some immigrants in damn. You don't need to implement a whole wealth redistribution scheme to incentivize people to have kids. Just bring in some people from places where they have higher birth rates than they do opportunities and Bob's your uncle.