>Housing has never been this much of a problem up until the past decade or two.
>You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example?
So, by 'never', you meant somewhere around 60 years? 75 years? I ask because you discount my 80 year-old example (chosen by availability because I'm reading an interesting book on the economics of Nazi Germany right now) as if it couldn't possibly be relevant because it's so long ago, while appealing to 'never' to attempt a weighty claim.
>The population in the US is the highest it's been in history.
And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard.
>You're using a bullshit metric like growth rate which is a percentage of constantly increasing number? 1% of 100 is the same as 50% of 2. Of course the growth rate goes down as the population goes up.
Yes, I'm using a percentage term for growth rate because it is appropriate for the comparison, unless you believe in some immutable constant carrying capacity for the US. Adding 1 million people to 10 million is not remotely similar to adding a million to 330 million, but that's the version you're arguing for.
>The natives to the country have a declining birthrate. This is the responsible thing to do.
Responsible to what? It's suicide by an entire species, not to mention dooming your descendants to lower standards of living as the viability of specialization gradually decays.
I'm out of time to respond to this comment, but your remaining points are equally in need of correction.
> And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard.
I suspect you hope that continues because it benefits you and your agenda. Not because it's what's best for a country.
If you don't understand basic science like carrying capacity of an area and stable population density...and how population's expand and contract to meet that stable density...if left without interference...then yeah, you're not going to understand my point.
I suspect you have an agenda so it's not a productive conversation.
>You gotta reach back to over a hundred years ago to find an example?
So, by 'never', you meant somewhere around 60 years? 75 years? I ask because you discount my 80 year-old example (chosen by availability because I'm reading an interesting book on the economics of Nazi Germany right now) as if it couldn't possibly be relevant because it's so long ago, while appealing to 'never' to attempt a weighty claim.
>The population in the US is the highest it's been in history.
And I hope that will continue, though things look bleak in that regard.
>You're using a bullshit metric like growth rate which is a percentage of constantly increasing number? 1% of 100 is the same as 50% of 2. Of course the growth rate goes down as the population goes up.
Yes, I'm using a percentage term for growth rate because it is appropriate for the comparison, unless you believe in some immutable constant carrying capacity for the US. Adding 1 million people to 10 million is not remotely similar to adding a million to 330 million, but that's the version you're arguing for.
>The natives to the country have a declining birthrate. This is the responsible thing to do.
Responsible to what? It's suicide by an entire species, not to mention dooming your descendants to lower standards of living as the viability of specialization gradually decays.
I'm out of time to respond to this comment, but your remaining points are equally in need of correction.