Not only is this not true, but it is, in fact, pro-illegal immigration propoganda.

The most important thing overlooked in the myths you cite is not just the lack of need for increased employment, which you ignore. But also, dwindling resources.

Healthy economics is never based on a pyramid scheme of constant population growth. Not at the local level, not at the national level and certainly not at the global level.

If we have to allow immigrants in -- and this would inevitably be illegal immigrants -- to pay for old age, then what are the old people doing in the countries this imported labor is coming from? Does anyone want to be old in a country like Mexico or any of the communities these people are coming from?

No. Population growth always has to stop somewhere in a healthy cycle of a relatively constant number of people that works in some way for everyone within a nation. Else what is a national economy for?

The Russians are also not sustaining population growth. And my sense is that they are not as concerned about it. Putin argues that Russians need to reproduce more, but he himself is a product of Stalin's Soviet baby farming policies. Nothing good came out of that.

If Russia can sustain a low population level into this century, they could wind up with a standard of living better than the Germans before the middle of this century. More resources for fewer people in a free market industrial economy driven by quality labor supported by mechanization and information technology.

I'm not sure about all this, I think our "immigration" situation over the last thirty years is more of an economic nature rather than a replacement problem.

As in the old model of subsistence farmers, there has to be enough of a younger population to support the elderly, but I don't believe it would be at such a high rate of young to old.

What I saw in the 80's was not due to a lack of able bodied and skilled workers, but a recession recovery in America and a small Mexican middle class essentially wiped out by a necessary devaluation of the Peso after the oil industry crisis in the early 80's. American employers took advantage of the situation by hiring illegal foreigners for pennies on the dollar. Word got out, and the third world flood began.

One of the problems with the way our economy is set up is that if a locality or region isn't growing, it's dying. Hence all the housing boom fueled in part by all those people coming here in such a great mass, "white flight" from overpopulated cities increasingly packed with foreigners, the notion of a house being an investment/ATM rather than a home, and artificial inflation of real estate values. Then the inevitable collapse.

As well as the fact that we can pave over only so much farmland before the population becomes unsustainable.

Currently we do have quite a number of older people who aren't quite done with their working lives who are unemployed while a stroll through town will find all sorts of jobs filled with people who shouldn't be here in the first place and wouldn't be if the government had enforced the 1986 immigration/amnesty law. I know people of all ages who have been out of work for a couple of years who would do those jobs.

I believe our situation at this time is more about who gets the money, or perhaps who gets a bigger cut than an aging population, and it's in the interest of "got mine" Republican party backed business to have a excess of people competing for jobs, as well as a Democratic party "leadership" blindly seeking a constituency.

Regardless of how many citizens lose their homes or people in their fifties who end up sleeping on their PARENT'S couch.

Importing people while exporting jobs as well as shoveling all our capital to China just isn't going to work, and either people in Congress are too stupid to see it, or they just don't friggin' care.

My two cents
 

I heard something last week that farmers in No Cal were offering picking jobs to anyone unemployed due to the recession. Odd, I say, that illegals have "moved" (or taken over, if you will) into construction and blue collar jobs like trucking; only to have dispossed Americans offered the jobs that THEY NO LONGER WILL DO. Something's wrong with this picture. I remember when those jobs required apprenticeships and memberships into unions that actually cared about their people - not just the money from the dues.

Maybe this is the wrong thread as it has nothing to do with white nationalists, really.

It did in the beginning, then evolved into a couple of other discussions...

My opinion:
 

Just to expound on my attitude:

The USA is rushing to the brink of the cliff with immigration. It is absolutely a lunatic, self destruction.

I would like to see ALL immigration halted immediately both legal and illegal until we see some semblance of common sense.

Furthermore I would like to see a reduction in US population little by little. But I am a realist, not an ideologue.

The "system" is structured to increase, build more homes, make more cars, increase, proliferate, make more money .........................................

The consequences of a reduction in population are already understood. Disaster!

Thus we are on a Nantucket sleigh ride. The politician, the businessmen will want more and more.

I could expound on the dilemma but it would fall on deaf ears. It takes people with insight and vision to understand that we, as a people, are bent on destroying our planet in the coming decades.

The species Homo Sapiens could certainly become extinct. And there are too few who really understand.

Is this a misprint? "The consequences of a reduction in population are already understood. Disaster!" Or explain what you mean by that.

I believe he's speaking of implosion, a collapse of society and all that maintains it if the forward momentum of growth in population, productivity, and profit isn't maintained.

Depleted of energy, the star falls in on itself.

There will eventually be an end to it, the question is not if - it is when.

Exactly !
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
Exactly precise

So, you would like to see a reduction in US population, but you think the consequences of a reduction in population are "already understood" to be a disaster.

If you would like to see a reduction in US population, then you at least agree that the US population, at least, should be stabilized at some fixed number. How many fewer people should the US have and what about the rest of the world?

Not speaking for wetibbe...

Prosperity of a nation concerning conventional economics and regardless of individual prosperity is based on viable trade and ursury, not cutting back a population.

All of that is in one way or another dependent on traditional growth.

What we need is a viable economic model which doesn't depend on traditional growth for prosperity, something which brings in wealth from the outside and in which every citizen participating in a meaningful manner gets a cut.

And recycled 1960's social theory doesn't cut it.