Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. The US accepts over a million immigrants a year, refugees make up about 3% of that. The two biggest sources of immigrants are India and China and immigrants tend to have as much college education as natural born citizens. Brain drained immigrants far outnumber refugees and mass economic migrants. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#Demographic, Educational, Linguistic No argument from me. There will always be some sort of population policy, even if it's choosing to do nothing. I should have been more explicit about that. As for birth rates, I would be not be concerned if they held steady just below what was needed to keep the population constant but they have been trending down for a long time and it's not clear when they will bottom out.
  2. Most, if not all, developed nations don't have sufficient birth rates to even keep their population constant, much less growing. The risk of doing nothing would be an aging population like Japan's with insufficient work aged people to support the elderly. Immigration can help make up the difference and keep population levels stable to avoid a top heavy demographic. My opinions on the causes of slow growth in the economy lead me to believe that population policy won't have any effect and could possibly make it worse in the long term.
  3. Then being a criminal has nothing to do with being in jail or even committing a crime. Plenty of people are considered criminals because they got busted for possession, but clearly that would not fit your own definition of a criminal. Perhaps you should simply argue about people who don't care about the common good rather than try to redefine the meaning of criminal.
  4. My impression would be that without faster than light travel, it would be far too risky. Your target could be able to see your forces coming thousands of years ahead of time and develop new technologies unpredictably to prepare. Unless you're certain that you will still have an extreme technological edge once you arrive, I doubt it would make sense to employ force. However, that's not really a war anymore but a massacre.
  5. True, but that's not so much an overpopulation problem but a ecological footprint per capita problem. The solution is to be less wasteful, not shrink the population. Otherwise the rest of the world will have to be confined to a much lower quality of life just to compensate for Americans doing nothing.
  6. Diminishing returns on labour has always been true, it's not a new phenomena. If you want greater productivity you need more human and conventional capital, not more labor. That being said immigrants are more mobile and entrepreneurial than born citizens and therefore tend to contribute more to the economy on average so it's not surprising that governments adopt pro-immigrant policies.
  7. Overpopulation? Since when was the US even close to being overpopulated?
  8. Skill mismatch and location mismatch are the two biggest issues that need to be addressed. Skill mismatches can addressed with workplace training incentives and better retraining programs. Location mismatch is the bigger of the two problems though and more difficult to address since both businesses and people are resistant to moving. You can try to help get people to where the jobs are with financial support for labor migration. Bringing jobs to where the people are could involve establishing tax incentives for communities most affected by technological labour loss. The government could also move some office operations that are not location dependant to communities with high unemployment in order to directly create jobs. The Canadian government places a lot of offices in the maritimes for this reason.
  9. My opinion is if a nation has so many prisoners that giving them a right to vote would make them a major voting block, that nation has much bigger issues that need to be dealt with besides should prisoners have the right to vote. It's a bit of a canary in the coal mine sort of deal.
  10. Are you insinuating that people should vote for Trump out of fear of domestic terrorists?
  11. I'd point out that illness and disease has a major impact on productivity and the amount of resources available. Not only does it consume resources to care for the sick, both material and man-hours, the sick cease to be productive members of society. If the original premise was true, then the regions and time periods where illness was the most prevalent should also have the highest living standards. Clearly this is not true. Illness negatively affects the availability of resources within a society, reducing the standard of living for all and further promotes illness.
  12. I don't think that Ben Carson would have done better if he was more like Trump and left leaning people weren't exactly fawning over him to begin with.
  13. curious, I wonder if it could be made efficient enough to be used for a personal charger for electronics. The paper says that it works best at lower temperatures so perhaps body heat would be sufficient?
  14. I'd be in favor of making voting mandatory but include a "none of the above" option for people to indicate that they found none of the choices acceptable. If none of the above won, then all parties would have to turf their candidates and offer new choices for another round.
  15. Not dying would probably be worse, the far future of the universe sounds incredibly boring.