this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
237 points (98.8% liked)

News

37365 readers
2018 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SamHalfcorpse@feddit.it 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

hey Gemini: Is this remark on the idea of removing birthright citizenship in the USA reasonable? If so why? If not why?

The remark presents a perspective on birthright citizenship that is not widely accepted by economists or demographers, and it contains several flawed assumptions and arguments. Here's a breakdown: Points of Contention:

  • Historical Context:
    • While it's true the 14th Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, was ratified after the Civil War, its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and ensure their equal protection under the law. It wasn't solely about increasing the population for economic growth.
    • The idea that the US population was "significantly smaller and wanted to grow" is too simplistic. Population growth has always been a complex issue, influenced by various social, economic, and political factors.
  • "Progress is ending/slowing down":
    • The claim that "progress is ending/slowing down" is subjective and debatable. While some sectors may experience slowdowns, others, like technology, continue to advance. Economic cycles also have periods of growth and slowdown.
    • Economic growth is not ending.
  • "Demand for human labor is declining":
    • While automation and technological advancements are changing the nature of work, they are not necessarily eliminating the overall demand for human labor. They are shifting the demand towards different skill sets.
    • There is still a very large demand for human labor, but the type of labor demanded is shifting.
  • "A shrinking population is a good thing":
    • A shrinking population can have severe economic consequences, including:
      • A smaller workforce, leading to labor shortages.
      • A reduced tax base, making it harder to fund social programs.
      • Slower economic growth.
      • An aging population, which puts strains on social security and healthcare systems.
    • The concept that a shrinking population is universally "good" is not supported by mainstream economic thought.
  • "Immigration is a bad thing":
    • Immigration has historically played a vital role in the US economy, providing a source of labor, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
    • Immigrants often fill labor shortages in key sectors and contribute to economic growth.
    • Immigration is a very complex issue, and to state that it is a bad thing is a gross over simplification.
  • "Birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages":
    • While it's true that a tighter labor market can lead to higher wages, artificially suppressing the birthrate has long-term negative consequences, as mentioned earlier.
    • Relying solely on a declining birthrate to manage wage levels is an unsustainable and ethically questionable approach.
    • A declining birthrate can have major negative impacts on social security systems. In summary: The remark presents a simplistic and flawed view of economics, demographics, and history. It relies on generalizations and ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence population, labor markets, and economic growth.
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanka Gemini for that, but all the arguments that you just brought up are looking in the past, and on empirical data. I'm looking on the future, and doing analysis and thought/logic processes to figure out what lies in front of us. I guess i will have to live with having an isolated perspective here.

[–] CarnivorousCouch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

An aging population base is not good for the future. Your "logic" is severely limited if you're not considering the need for stable tax revenues to provide services, or the need for sufficient caregivers to aid elderly.

Edit: These are "forward thinking" concerns brought up by the comment you're replying to.

the need for stable tax revenues

I am considering the need for stable tax revenues.

I'm just not convinced that these tax revenues have to be paid for by the employee's labor tax. Why not introduce a wealth tax instead? Let the billionaires pay. Tax them 3% of the net worth annually. That would actually help the people.