http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance /
I just watched this week's Nova on PBS, "World in the Balance," which discusses world population trends.
It is an excellent episode and showed the problems caused by both uncontrolled population growth in some countries (like India and Sub-Saharan Africa) and population decline in other countries (like Japan).
While the show didn't explore Mexico, it did mention several countries I think might be examples of what Mexico COULD do if it had the will. Those countries were the modern Asian economic powerhouses like S. Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In the middle 20th century those countries were suffering massive population growth. So their governments instituted national family planning programs which significantly lowered the birth rate in a short time. Then those countries' governments took the money they saved from not having to take care of those children, and invested that saved money in creating jobs for the existing and incoming labor force. As a result, those countries' economies boomed, becoming some of the most powerful in the world, especially impressive given their fairly small geographic sizes.

So why hasn't Mexico done this? Though Mexico's population growth rate has declined somewhat, it is still rising at an alarming rate, certainly more than the Mexican economy can accomodate. But my guess is that the Asian model probably wouldn't work, as any savings in reduced services to children from family planning policies would likely be stolen by the Mexican government rather than invested in economic development. I imagine that even if by some miracle Mexico's population growth went negative tomorrow and continued to shrink over several decades, that Mexico would still be unable to provide enough jobs for an ever-shrinking labor force, and would still require up to 50% of remaining workers to leave the country to work in the U.S.The show went on to describe the situation in the U.S., where although our birth rate is just barely under the magic number of 2 children per couple needed to maintain the existing population, our population continues to increase by over a million (legal) immigrants per year. While this is bad from an environmental viewpoint, it is good from an economic one, as it allows our economy to steadily expand for the rest of the century. But while India has made significant progress in reducing its birth rate, it is still unable to provide even close to the 6 million new jobs per year needed to keep up with the increase in population, and that's even with its average 8% annual economic growth! India seems to be just like Mexico in this regard.

And just like Mexico, everyone in India who can is leaving for the U.S. or other countries. But unlike Mexico, the Indians who are leaving their country tend to be the most highly educated, leaving a shortage of brainpower needed to further expand the Indian economy.
Japan was at the other extreme. As its post-WWII economy took off, the population got better and better educated, better education typically being associated with lower birth rates in all countries. A desire to provide the best for their children also seems to have discouraged Japanese from having more children than they can comfortably support. Japanese women also chose career tracks and that has discouraged having children, especially since many Japanese companies discriminate against women with children.

Since Japan essentially prohibits immigration to protect its ethnic purity (strange how no one ever calls them racist for this), Japan's population is on a steep decline. This is coupled with what is now the world's longest lifespan, to create a social security disaster as the traditional pyramid scheme structure of such national insurance systems collapses from lack of new workers to finance the retirees. They showed one school with its SINGLE student, an unhappy looking boy sitting all alone in a classroom, presumably with no friends.
1 2 3
Having lived in a "Latin" American country I
can tell you that birth-control is a taboo subject. As elsewhere, politics is the problem. When groups go to these over-populated countries and start to
teach family planning and distribute birth-control pills, the cries ring out against it. No politician is going to propose it. The catholic church actually
promotes over-population. It's in their interests
to have a lot of faithful around for political and power reasons. Over-population is well underway
in the U.S. with large numbers of so-called
"Latinos" invading. Soon there will be standing
room only in Mexico City. That is happening
now in Los Angeles, New York, Miami etal.
where there are large numbers of "immigrants."
One male will impregnate many females somewhat
like an un-spayed dog or cat. The overage of
kids are left out in the streets, and in some cases police go out at night in civilian clothes and reduce the surplus population. On the other hand couples
in the U.S. are having few or no off-spring, because the female works or kids cost too much to rear or
the couples don't want to bring kids into a world
like this, as they see it. Regards..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance / I just watched this week's Nova on PBS, "World in the Balance," which discusses world population trends. It is ... one school with its SINGLE student, an unhappy looking boy sitting all alone in a classroom, presumably with no friends.

Your information on Mexico is outdated, I'm sorry to say. Mexico's fertility rate is only 2.53 children born/woman, and the population growth rate is 1.43 %.
Population growth has been under control for over a decade; it is no longer an issue in the country.
GDP per capita has doubled from 1990 to 2002.
I assume you think Mexico has a population problem because of the large immigration rate towards the US, which stands at -2.65 migrant(s)/1,000 population, which is high thanks to the sheer volume, but ranks 30th out of 203 countries as a migration-to-population ratio.
http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/mx/Mexico rankings.htm
I have been battling long and hard against the misconceptions regarding Mexican migration towards the US in these NGs. Simply put, Mexicans, specially poor Mexicans, migrate to the US because they can sell their labor at a higher rate per hour in the US. Wages ARE higher in your country. Period. Of course other variables may indirectly affect the migration dynamic, but the main, overriding variable is the wage difference between our two countries.

For example, whereas in the us making $1000 USD per month would pretty much make you a poor person, that kind of wage would buy you an OK life in Mexico. Not great life, but ok life. $3000 usd per month in the US gives you a barely OK life in the US, but makes you lower-to-middle middle class in Mexico.A large percentaje of Mexicans living in the US earn dollars, and send the money home to Mexico, so they spend pesos. This multiplies the purchasing power of their wages.

The differences in purchasing power are a direct result of the high level of productivity in the US, compared to the medium level of productivity in Mexico.
Another question remains: is migration to the US correlated to the levels of unemployment in Mexico? By logic it is. But not as strongly as you would imagine, simply because unemployment is not the driving force.
Think about this:
1) Would migration stop if we had full employment in Mexico, BUT youcould still get much higher wages in the US? No. Migration would not stop. Most Mexicans would still prefer to migrate to the US to get better wages. People migrate to different cities within a country following the wages, even during good times; why not across borders?
2) Would Mexicans migrate to the US if wages where the same or lessthan Mexico, even with high unemployment in Mexico? No, most would not risk the border crossing to earn the same wage or less.

If we accept these two axioms as true, then the logical conclusion is that the driving force behing Mexican migration to the US is mainly (but not exclusively) the wage differential. It is up to you to accept or challenge my axioms. But if you challenge them, I invite you to propose new axioms and reach logical conlcusions from them, something seldom seen in these newsgroups, I'm sorry to say.

As a final note, I would like to point out that I am FULLY aware of the socioeconomical implications of Mexican migration to the US. I'm not arguing whether it is good or bad; just pointing out the underlying dynamics. I beseech you not to attack down that path Emotion: smile
So Poop, read-the-book! Emotion: smile
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance / I just watched this week's Nova on PBS, "World in the Balance," which discusses world population trends. It is ... one school with its SINGLE student, an unhappy looking boy sitting all alone in a classroom, presumably with no friends.

Oh, I forgot to comment. You said the show didn't mention Mexico. That would be a pretty clear hint that we do not have an overpopulation problem, don't you think? Emotion: smile
If it was done for PBS or NPR, it was funded by
any number of extremely left leaning organizations and produced with a slant and spin in the direction for benefiting their agenda.
Thye have had a habit of producing very good propaganda shows, along with the extreme slant.
You might want to check their actual facts and figures againt other sources.

Radio Moscow used to do exactly the same and was funded greatly by the KGB. But with them, you turned it around 180 deg, and then it usually was right.

PBS and PBR have evidentily taken some direction from

some of the old proganda services, as have many of our

main stream media.
When seeing an article that is of interest, back check, and cross check the material for correct presentation.
on international issues, The jewish press, and some of the

scandinavian press are the most accruate, while the US and most British are totally biased. Might even check
thru Pravda, as they have a totally unique slant, if not a bit

more turthful on some issues.
Mexico's crisis is more of total mismanagment, and total

governmental corruption.. A press that is the mouthpiece of the government.
Pancho Villia and the boys still ride openly in good ol

Mehico, only differience, now they drive jeeps and hummers with Browing Ma duce 50cals, and M60 machine guns mounted on them..
Pablito
Your information on Mexico is outdated, I'm sorry to say. Mexico's fertility rate is only 2.53 children born/woman, and the population growth rate is 1.43 %. Population growth has been under control for over a decade; it is no longer an issue in the country.

I conceded that Mexico's birth rate has declined substantially in recent decades. I need to write a computer program to calculate it, but the PBS show already showed a graph for something like 2.4 children per couple, which increased exponentially until the population doubled in just 50 years. The magic number is, and will always be 2.0 children per couple to maintain the population at the same size. 3.0 children per couple doesn't seem like a whole lot more, but when you calculate it you wind up with an unfeasible population growth in a relatively short time.
GDP per capita has doubled from 1990 to 2002.

Which I and others have already pointed out wound up going almost entirely to a very small, PRI-connected elite, NOT to average Mexicans. I am not a communist, but I don't see any good coming from having 90% of a nation's wealth in the hands of a few dozen trillionaires while the other 100 million people earn $500 a year.
I assume you think Mexico has a population problem because of the large immigration rate towards the US, which stands at -2.65 migrant(s)/1,000 population, which is high thanks to the sheer volume, but ranks 30th out of 203 countries as a migration-to-population ratio. http://www.geographyiq.com/countries/mx/Mexico rankings.htm

Yes, that's a large part of my assumption. I already said that population increase isn't necessarily a problem IF the country's economy can handle it. The U.S. and E.U. depend on a constant population increase through immigration to keep our economies expanding. Mexico would require immigration as well if its economy had been properly managed for the last century instead of being destroyed by the elite.
I have been battling long and hard against the misconceptions regarding Mexican migration towards the US in these NGs. Simply ... dollars, and send the money home to Mexico, so they spend pesos. This multiplies the purchasing power of their wages.

Interesting idea, but it is just your personal opinion. I maintain that Mexicans are being EXPORTED by the Mexican government. I won't deny that an illegal Mexican alien mowing lawns in the U.S. still makes 10x as much as a skilled factory worker in Mexico. But the Mexican government (PRI) is still responsible for the exodus, whether the Mexicans are leaving voluntarily or being forced into trucks by INAMI officials as I read recently.
The heart of the problem is corruption and theft. I've stated my opinion/theory that the PRI siphons off most of the wealth generated by the Mexican economy. As a result, that wealth is not reinvested to produce further economic expansion and higher wages, as happens in other industrialized nations. If this theft were curtailed, Mexico's economy would begin to expand at a rapid rate, even beyond population growth. But until that happens, expect up to 50% of Mexico's labor force to leave the country, whether by choice or by force (INAMI).
The differences in purchasing power are a direct result of the high level of productivity in the US, compared to the medium level of productivity in Mexico.

Which is a direct result of Mexico's fanatically protectionist policies of the last century. Just like in the Soviet Union; with no competition and no ability to increase one's salary by working harder, the system just ground to a halt and collapsed.
i'll reply to this in another post later
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance /

Your information on Mexico is outdated, I'm sorry to say. Mexico's fertility rate is only 2.53 children born/woman, and the ... rankings.htm I have been battling long and hard against the misconceptions regarding Mexican migration towards the US in these NGs.

Well, based on my personal observations of migrants from Mexico in Los Angeles and the Denver area, they must suddenly start having large families of 5 to 8 children per couple as soon as they gain a foothold in the U.S. It's as if they had been let out of a cage. Western countries had baby booms after wars in the 20th century, trying to make up for the huge loss of life caused by war. In the post-WW II era, Americans were having large families. Mexicans in the U.S. have the highest fertility rate of any group. As a result we are seeing permanent water restrictions in Colorado and the rapid loss of farmland. It's a lose-lose situation.
Your information on Mexico is outdated, I'm sorry to say. ... misconceptions regarding Mexican migration towards the US in these NGs.

Well, based on my personal observations of migrants from Mexico in Los Angeles and the Denver area, they must suddenly ... a result we are seeing permanent water restrictions in Colorado and the rapid loss of farmland. It's a lose-lose situation.

Because they see the opportunity to send these kids out to work at the earliest possible age (by dropping out of school). Imagine if all 6 or
7 family members can make 10 times a Mexican factory wage.
Well, based on my personal observations of migrants from Mexico ... and the rapid loss of farmland. It's a lose-lose situation.

Because they see the opportunity to send these kids out to work at the earliest possible age (by dropping out of school). Imagine if all 6 or 7 family members can make 10 times a Mexican factory wage.

Not to mention the demographic warfare that it plays out. They see it as Reconquista.
Mostrar más