6 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

I am opening this thread as a spin off from a discussion we are having on immortality economics ( Funding yourself ). We need to begin to address the complex interaction of a globalized society, immigration, border policy and how this will relate to the general social acceptance of concepts associated with the impact of longevity technology.

This article from the NY Times follows as a good point of reference as to how the political landscape is shifting and its current impact on the upcoming elections let alone a forecast of how trends will be affected as the shift solidifies into an economic necessity to maintain Social Security if longevity technology is not introduced sooner than most understand it will be.

http://story.news.ya...too&e=7&ncid=68
Hispanics Back Big Government and Bush, Too
Sun Aug 3, 8:56 AM ET Add Top Stories - The New York Times to My Yahoo!
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER The New York Times

Hispanics view the Democratic Party as better able than the Republican Party to manage the economy, create jobs and improve the nation's public school system, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. But they admire President Bush (news - web sites) and have embraced positions from supporting tax cuts to opposing abortion and some gay rights that have typically been identified with Republicans.

The poll, an unusually extensive effort to measure the political and social attitudes of those who call themselves Hispanic, revealed a complex challenge facing both parties as they battle to command the support of a segment of the electorate that is on the verge of rivaling African-Americans in numbers.

Although the White House and the Democratic Party have approached Hispanics as if they were an ethnic group with common experiences that predictably inform voting behavior the poll suggests the extent to which Hispanics are less than monolithic in their background, culture and political beliefs.

In many ways, the Hispanic respondents questioned over the course of two weeks mirrored traditional Democratic ethnic constituencies. They were twice as likely to call themselves Democrats as Republicans, viewed the Democratic Party more favorably than the Republican Party and, by a margin of 49 percent to 21 percent, said the Democratic Party was more likely to care about the needs of Hispanics.

A majority said they supported a bigger government providing more services, backed affirmative action and questioned whether the war in Iraq (news - web sites) was worth the cost. By a 2-to-1 ratio, Hispanics said the Democratic Party was more likely to ensure a strong economy than Republicans, and 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to create jobs, compared with 20 percent who said the same about Republicans.

But the respondents identified with Republicans on a host of issues the party has emphasized over the past two years. They applauded tax cuts, calling them better economic policy than reducing deficits, and embraced the use of school vouchers. They were less likely than the population at large to support the legalization of homosexual relations between consenting adults. And 44 percent of Hispanics said abortion should not be legal, compared with 22 percent of non-Hispanics.

The Times/CBS News poll also found that among the general electorate, President Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 54 percent, a 13-point fall, since May, reflecting growing concerns about the economy and doubts about the war in Iraq. The last time Mr. Bush's job approval rating was at 54 percent was in February, before the war.

The poll was conducted by telephone from July 13 to 27, with 3,092 adults nationwide, 1,074 of whom described themselves as Hispanic. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for the entire poll and plus or minus four percentage points for Hispanics. Sample sizes for most Hispanic nationalities, like Cubans or Dominicans, were too small to break out the results separately.

The poll signaled that the competition to court Hispanic voters whom White House aides have identified as one of the critical groups of swing voters in next year's election is wide open, notwithstanding the efforts by each party in recent years to strengthen its support among these voters in anticipation of the 2004 contest.

That impression was underlined by follow-up interviews with some of the respondents.

"The Republicans are closer to my value system," said Abigail Hansen, 45, an independent voter from West Valley City, Utah, who was born in Uruguay. "The Democrats are pro abortion and pro homosexual marriage, and those are things my value system does not agree with."

But another independent voter, Shane Garcia, 31, a retail manager from Lincoln , Neb., whose family is from Mexico, said: "Since George W. Bush came into office, I have not seen things improve. Everything has gotten worse, including the economy, the budget, and the lack of jobs.

"I have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, because they do more to support the majority of Americans," Mr. Garcia continued. "They look out for the middle and working class."

Mr. Bush won the support of 35 percent of Hispanic voters in 2000; in this poll, 21 percent of Hispanics who say they are registered to vote said they would vote for his re-election.

Matthew Dowd, a pollster and senior adviser to Mr. Bush's re-election campaign, wrote a memorandum last year saying the president needed to win at least 40 percent of the support of Hispanic voters next year.

Still, Mr. Bush would appear to be in a fairly strong position with many of these voters; there are indications that his standing is stronger with Hispanics than his party's is.

Hispanics approved of Mr. Bush's job performance 52 to 38 percent, while 54 percent said that he "cares about the needs and problem of people like yourself." By contrast, just 40 percent of Hispanics said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, while 60 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats.

And one-third of Hispanics said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for public office who spoke Spanish. Mr. Bush does, if perhaps not fluently.

The political portrait of Hispanics provided by this poll, if in many ways ambiguous, would suggest opportunities for both parties. In short, Hispanics have at once an expansive view of government, which reflects what many of the Democratic presidential candidates are saying, while holding decidedly conservative views on social issues, which reflect the positions of Mr. Bush.

Significantly, respondents had a more benevolent view of government than the nation at large.

The poll found that 75 percent of Hispanics said they wanted a larger government providing more services, as opposed to the smaller one with a limited role that has been advanced by Mr. Bush. By contrast, 40 percent of the general sample said they preferred a larger government. And 46 percent of Hispanic respondents said they trusted the government in Washington to do what was right always or most of the time; 36 percent of the total sample offered the same view.

The view of an aggressive government came from people who tended to be much more anxious about the future of the economy than the nation at large. Among Hispanics, 72 percent said they feared that they or someone in their household would be out of work within the next year. Among respondents at large, just 46 percent expressed such concerns.

"Here where I live they have closed four warehouses and stores I see a major need for jobs," said Vickie Johnson, 27, a Californian of Mexican descent who is a Democrat.

Hispanics also reported lower household incomes: 47 percent reported incomes of under $30,000 a year, compared with 27 percent for non-Hispanics.

There is also a sharp divergence of views on Iraq: 49 percent of Hispanics said removing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power was not worth the potential loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, compared with 39 percent of all respondents.

On other issues, like abortion and gay rights, the responses clearly broke away from the Democratic model. Hispanics were evenly divided on the question of whether homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal; among the general public, this position is supported by 54 percent to 39 percent.

[Lazarus Long]

add these links for review

Social Security: Problems Solved by Immigration
... countries for the free flow of labor. Mexican immigration and Social
Security "solvency" are intimately, inescapably, intertwined. ...
http://www.mnforsust...us_pro_immg.htm

Immigration – Legal or Otherwise – No Solution to Social Security crisis of course, these legal workers will one day become legal beneficiaries of Social Security, so much of the benefits of immigration for Social Security solvency are ...
http://www.socialsec...s/04-26-01.html

Committee on Ways and Means, Social Security Subcommittee, 9-19- ... The existence of the SSA suspense file shows that immigrant workers, regardless of their immigration status, are paying Social Security taxes and are not ...
http://waysandmeans....onalcouncil.htm

Politics and Immigration
... been pushing for a Social Security agreement with Mexico as a consolation prize to make up for Bush's failure to pursue promised immigration reform, according ...
http://www.usbc.org/...3ssgiveaway.htm

[DJS]

Some quick points.

1) Mexican Americans are treated as second class citizens. They take the jobs you wouldn't want your teenager to have. They are a cheap labor source for the United States.

2) Unlike the Black America, the Hispanic community is a free agent which, along with its exploding population, will give it considerable say in the future politics of America.

3) They are for more government (bad) and are socially conservative (bad). Fortunately, because of the polarizing effect of politics in this country, they are being forced to pick a side like everyone else. I say fortunately because the Hispanic community has consistently voted 2 to 1 democrat. This is good news for the biotechnology.

[AgentNyder]

Well I'm not really familiar with the situation in America - but in Australia, immigration policy is geared more towards the economic benefits of immigration.

The majority of migrants are accepted under the 'skill stream' criteria, with younger age levels being more preferable. There are also 'family' and 'humanitarian' streams.

Immigration is mainly used to retard population ageing (though it does not solve the problem) and to create supply and demand effects for goods and services.

And here's the government department's site: http:\\www.immi.gov.au

Funny thing is, I could've gone to a breakfast function next week with the Immigration Minister (Phillip Ruddock), but decided not to at the last minute. I think I'll regret that now, because I could have asked him some valuable questions in relation to this topic. :(

[AgentNyder]

Found some interesting journal excerpts from Gary Becker's website if anyone's interested. Would be good to locate the actual articles if anyone knows how to find them.

Old-Age Longevity and Mortality-Contingent Claims
Philipson, Tomas J.; Becker, Gary S.

Journal of Political Economy; v106 n3 June 1998, pp. 551-73.

This paper analyzes the savings and longevity impacts of mortality-contingent claims under which earned income is contingent on the length of one's life. The postwar increase in mandatory annuity and old-age longevity motivates a better understanding of the incentive effects these claims have on longevity-related behavior. The authors claim that these incentives often alter the standard conclusions obtained about old-age support when mortality is treated exogenously. Annuities involve moral hazard effects that increase longevity and, among other things, introduce a positive interaction between public programs for health care and income support for the elderly--programs that have grown enormously in developed countries.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mortality Contingent Claims, Health Care, and Social Insurance
University of Chicago Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, Working Paper: 129 August 1996, pp. 24.
Philipson, Tomas J.; Becker, Gary S.

This paper analyzes the savings and health care impacts of mortality contingent claims, defined here as income measures, such as annuities and life-insurance, under which earned income is contingent on the length of one's life. The postwar increase in mandatory annuity and life- insurance programs, as well as the rapid increase in life- expectancy, motivates a better understanding of the effects that mortality contingent claims have on resources devoted to life-extension. We analyze the incentives that such claims imply for life-extension when resources may affect mortality endogenously and argue that these incentives dramatically alter the standard conclusions obtained when mortality is treated exogenously.

http://www.src.uchic...edu/users/gsb1/

[Lazarus Long]

Immigration is vastly more complex in the US than in Australia, which has very different current economic conditions, traditions (not obvious), and specific history.

To begin with, Australia is an island, a condition which many in the US lament we are not. My personal opinion is not entirely relevant here but I will add that the "Fortress America" concept is predicated on a sealed defensible border that is the modern variant of the traditional isolationist's feudal dream.

The truth is that is not feasible. We have literally tens of thousands of miles of nearly unenforcible borders with Canada, Mexico, and the ocean (this last is similar in part logistically to Australia). What is not obvious is that we also have border access in remote locations like Puerto Rico, which is technically inside the domestic border yet is an island in the Caribbean and Hawaii, which is a State in the middle of the Pacific. We also have a border with a nation few remember because of its remote location but is rather obvious to any student of geography, it is the border across a relatively short stretch of ocean with Russia. Russia is technically even closer than Cuba; 60 (Bering Strait) as opposed to 90 (Florida Strait) miles from US territory.

Now to compound the matter, we have a remarkably arcane immigration policy that is not based on the same criteria as Australia and the history of immigration for the US is not truly analogous to that of Australia. We have cathartically opened and closed our borders more for reasons of race and political convenience than skills and to confuse the matter, we have been economically and strategically dependent on immigration arguable since pre-revolutionary war times but as a Republic most definitely since the Civil War, when immigrants were drafted into battle directly off the boat to go fight against the South.

Today a significant number of our troops are immigrants and not even citizens and this is a consequence of a volunteer army. It is also directly analogous to why the Roman empire, simultaneous to the fall of the Republic, was logistically required to create the Auxiliaries to support the Legions. The Auxiliaries were necessary because the quantity of troops necessary to garrison and protect the borders exceeded the possible numbers that even a draft could muster so the grant of citizenship became the selling point of garnering allegiance to the Roman conquerors and assimilation into the empire became a manner of securing internal populations of subject peoples such as the Gauls, Spanish, some German tribes, and the British. Sound familiar?

The policy is very similar to what the British in fact did for most of three centuries until they could not maintain the integrity of both empire and domestic culture and economy. When that became apparent during the Victorian era the baton of empire was voluntarily transferred to the "New Jerusalem," the United States.

This nation has depended upon immigration throughout most of its history to maintain the expansionist policies that have driven our economic growth. We still do. We need the input of raw manpower in the military and as workers. We even now require the input to offset investment in the Social Security system but there is a more subtle aspect to this in relation to the more arcane history of the country with relation to Mexico, Mexicans once were the domestic population of what today is the western United States. The vast majority of Mexicans are pure or in part "Native Americans".

Many tribes that were driven south in the Indian War expansion still survive in the desert north of Mexico and other tribes had traditional migratory routes up the Mississippi into the central plains and trade with the Sioux, Nez Pierce and other groups. To make matters more complex they are our "Aborigines" to use the term not PC anymore, that is analogous to the situation in Australia.

The territory of the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Texas, and Nevada were all seized through military conquest from Mexico but family relationships exist across borders to this day that find themselves on opposite sides of these borders. The majority of Chicanos for example, hearken from one particular state in Mexico, Michoacan, and these reflect a particular tribal (Purempecha & Chichimeca) relationships that have traveled some of these routes to California since pre-Columbian times. In a way many of these groups can be seen as America's Kurds.

Apache, Kickapoo, Comanche, even various Siouxian tribes have tribal lands in both the United States and Mexico. A similar yet less problematic situation exists across the border along the Great lakes with northern tribes and Canada. All of this is only a drop in the bucket however to the economic engine that drives legal and illegal immigration into the United States. While many corporations give lip service to opposing illegal immigration, all too many depend on it to function. Poultry, agribusiness in general, and numerous service industries all depend on the cheap labor provided by these groups to keep consumer prices low for their products, not to mention few second generation citizens want these menial tasks.

Australia is only now reaching the end of the "open frontier era," the United States arguably reached that phase shift over a century ago. Your policies as I understand it have been more insular since the beginning of your nation as well and this was never a part of American history. Culturally we have practiced local isolationism but politically we have been imperialistic since the beginning.

Those of you that object to my use of the word imperialist, I suggest a careful study of history for I am simply calling a spade, a spade; and not trying to spin it to simply cover up and serve my self interest. Our national policy is, and has always been imperialist, the first war we ever undertook after the Revolution was a war of aggression against British interests in Canada (War of 1812), the second was against Mexico and more successful (Mexican-American War 1846/48), the third, after we fought among ourselves to consolidate the spoils of expansion (Civil War) was the Spanish American War (1898), which also has little to do with any threat to US interest and was primarily about extending a global military reach into the Pacific. Only in the 20th century were we ever in fact attacked and from the perspective of the Japanese that was because of our expansion into their traditional sphere of influence (no excuse on their part yet a different perspective than is taught domestically).

I raise this aspect not to beat dead horses but to explain why we also have a "globalized" form of immigration, as now we have sources of population coming from these interests around the world. We have flows of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America and closing our doors would be even more economically disruptive to the powers that be than most people imagine. It would also be like "cutting off one's nose to spite their face". The complexion of America is not and has never been ethnically one shade. Africa slaves have been coming to the Americas for a hundred years before the British. Tribal treaties and complex trade arraignments are woven into our history in a manner that was never really a part of what happened in Australia as that land was wholesale seized with little credit and regard given at all to the native people. Here the death toll can be measured in the millions and that bloodshed came with a price and a part of that price is that the migrations of surviving subsequent populations will not stop until a new concept of inclusion is achieved or a race war will be the result.

But this should not be a surprise to anyone, American history began as a clash of cultures and empire and the struggles while abating for periods have never, ever stopped. We are the inheritors of the wars of the Old World and now make our own interests the force behind a "New World" order. Perhaps in a century or so Australia will be as the center of Oceania in a position to challenge and even replace us but I suspect that mutual self interest will drive your nation into common cause with these Western interests much sooner than that, even as your nation is being granted nuclear weapons power as an ally. You are becoming an integral part of the global military process and are the Eastern front against Islamic expansion as seen from the traditional mindset that is the arcane backdrop of these modernized Crusading interests.

Sorry about including the last stuff but trade, war, and political expansion are the true engines of migrations and I couldn't resist including them, in hopes of the fervent objections that might come back at me, let alone the denials of history.

[AgentNyder]

That was interesting, Lazarus, it opened my mind to the situation in America a bit more.

Australia's history of immigration is a much less complex. In 1901 when federation occured, the 'White Australia' policy was introduced that basically restricted immigration to those of certain ethnic backgrounds. I won't go into the social or political reasons - just one strong rationale in that it was believed that importing different ethnicities would lead to cheap labour and therefore a depressing of wage rates for ordinary Australians.

Although until recently, immigration policy was mainly non-economic. During the second world war we adopted a phrase - 'populate or perish' - and thus a lot of new arrivals came from Europe this period and a massive increase in the immigration intake.

Anyway I'm just recalling my essay but the White Australia Policy was abolished in the 1970s.

The current government sets about an 100000 per year migration intake with over 50% skill stream. I had a formula from the Treasury that showed that population growth could be factored into GDP growth. I think this is a large part of the rationale behind the current government's thinking.

Australia was getting a bit of negative publicity recently due to the asylum seeker issue. The Government actually sets a reasonable quota for asylum seekers and offers comparitively good treatment for them in the detention centres. Though I won't go into this argument which has been politicised beyond belief (they are still handing out brochures at my university about this! ).

Anyway back to immortality economics. I found an interesting site through Google that has some nice stats.

Here's an excerpt:

The rate at which the world's population has been increasing every year has been gradually declining since the early 1970s and will likely continue to decline through the beginning of the 21st century and beyond.

Although the rate of population growth is slowing due to the age structure of the population and the beginning absolute population levels, the world's population will probably to grow through the middle of the 21st century, although the growth will keep getting smaller and smaller. By 2045-50, for example, the United Nations estimates that annual average rate of population growth will decline to 0.34 percent (3).

This decline is reflected in the increasing length of time it takes to add another billion people to the world's population (4):

Population
Years to achieve

1 billion (1804)
>50,000

2 billion (1927)
123

3 billion (1960)
33

4 billion (1974)
14

5 billion (1987)
13

6 billion (1999 - proj.)
12

7 billion (2013 - proj.)
14

8 billion (2028 - proj.)
15

9 billion (2054 - proj.)
26




Based on the median variant (often viewed as the most likely scenario) of the United Nations' population projections, world population would peak at somewhere under 10 billion in the latter half of the 21st century and then gradually begin to declined.

The main factor driving the slow down in the rate of population growth is the worldwide decline in |total fertility rates|. The total fertility rate measures the average number of children born to women during their child bearing years. A TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement level -- at that rate a population would neither grow nor decline.

TFRs have declined dramatically around the world over the last two decades (5):



Year
World TFR
More Developed Countries TFR
Less Developed Countries TFR

1985
4.2
1.9
4.7

1990
3.4
1.9
3.7

2000 - proj.
2.8
1.6
3.1




Total fertility rates around the world have declined by 33 percent just since 1985, and both United Nations and US Census Bureau projections expect them to decline further. By 2025 the US Census Bureau estimates that the TFR of the less developed countries will have fallen to 2.4 -- very close to the replacement level.

Should the decrease in total fertility rates stop, however, the United Nations projects world population in 2040-50 could reach as high as 11.9 billion. On the other hand if the decline in total fertility rates should accelerate, world population could plateau at 7.9 billion by 2040-2050 (6).

One of the main consequences will be a shift in where the world's population lives. Eighty-eight percent of population growth from 1990-1995 occurred in Asia and Africa, and this trend will only continue. By 2050 Africa's population is expected to triple while Europe's is expected to decline by 7 percent by 2050 (7).

http://www.overpopul...rojections.html