
As Population Growth Slows, Populism Surges - rinze
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/opinion/populist-populism-fertility-rates.html
======
ScottBurson
Maybe it's time for governments to start coming up with policies to attract
technology businesses to small cities and perhaps even towns. These businesses
would have to be comfortable having many remote workers, since there's no way
they're going to get everyone they want to hire to move there, but maybe they
could be given sufficient incentive to set up a headquarters there.

It's not unusual, of course, for localities to give large companies tax
incentives to build factories, warehouses, or even data centers, but those tax
incentives are very expensive, and they don't tend to bring better-educated,
higher-earning workers into the area. Trying to attract a larger number of
much smaller businesses might be a more fruitful approach in the long run, if
a way can be found to do it.

~~~
bobbytherobot
There has been an effort to attract technology business to small cities and
rural areas since the mid-1990s. I recall driving through West Virginia around
2000 and seeing a sign labeling a stretch of highway as "West Virginia's Tech
Corridor." Knowing West Virginia, any company that built along there would
have zero taxes, heck they probably wouldn't have to pay for the land.

Purely monetary incentives don't work. You have to look at the full range of
what incentives people to move to a place. And companies are still run by
people who are swayed by those same incentives.

Even in the Bay Area, companies with large campuses and competitive pay are
opening offices in San Francisco because their talent is demanding it.

~~~
ScottBurson
All true. I didn't say it would be easy. And I never suggested one could just
pick a stretch of road and put it there — I think you have to have at least a
small city.

------
repolfx
Parts of this article seem like a rather circular analysis.

 _In the world’s largest cities, where populations are densely concentrated
and growing, economies are generally thriving and cosmopolitanism is embraced.
Where populations are sparse or shrinking, usually in rural places and small
cities, economies are often stagnant, and populism sells._

What does "thriving" mean here? GDP? Do any countries track GDP by city? I
haven't heard of that if so. This paragraph is vague but if by "thriving" they
mean lots of economic activity, that's a circular definition - "thriving
economies are where lots of people are". By this logic cities have always had
more "thriving" economies than rural areas and always will, by the very
definition of what a city is.

Also, whilst they define populism, they do not define "cosmopolitanism". If
populism is the feeling that a small group of elites do not represent the
needs of ordinary people, then what is cosmopolitanism? The idea that elites
don't exist at all? Or that they do and that it's a good thing if they rule?

 _As youth have continued to migrate from rural areas to cities, their
movement has widened not only the median age gap between rural places and
cities, but also gaps in attitude, since the young, regardless of where they
live, tend to associate more with urban outlooks._

More circularity. Cities are dominated by the young, therefore the young
associate more with urban outlooks. This is restating the premise in different
words.

 _One movement extols the values that are a practical necessity in dense,
interconnected cities: interdependence, internationalism and the embrace of
“diversity” (defined along multiple dimensions)_

This is stated as if it's obvious fact, but I don't understand why. Why is
internationalism a practical necessity in cities? Are there no cities in the
world with quite ethnically homogenous populations? Have the authors visited
eastern European or Russian cities? Or African cities?

Overall I find this analysis weak. It's basically a big correlation/causation
fallacy, written by academics in the NY Times (elitist intellectuals writing
in what is practically the official newspaper of such people), who are non too
subtly arguing that smart young energetic people and places are people who
agree with academics, and old decaying declining people and places are people
who don't.

But there are many other ways to explain contemporary political shifts. I see
no reason to link it to demographics.

~~~
woodandsteel
The causal start is advancing industrialization. This both reduces fertility
rates and favors cities over the countryside. The relation is very consistent
over many different countries, and it is easy to see what the causal chains
are for each of them.

>Why is internationalism a practical necessity in cities? Are there no cities
in the world with quite ethnically homogenous populations? Have the authors
visited eastern European or Russian cities? Or African cities?

These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally, than
the countryside.

Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation, but
don't present it so that we can examine it critically.

~~~
repolfx
I think the first part of your argument is debatable, especially in modern
times. In recent eras advancing industrialisation has meant telecoms, the
internet, computers. All technologies that allow people to live and work
anywhere. Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace
for the first time since the pre-industrial era.

Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural
areas to the cities in the past. It's not so clear it still means that now.
And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements
in healthcare. You can say those improvements wouldn't have happened without
industrialization, but that's just redefining industrialization as progress in
general. In which case "cosmopolitanism is caused by progress" becomes the
argument: an opinion, surely.

 _These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally,
than the countryside._

You're talking about interconnectedness, the first thing the article's authors
specified, but I was talking about internationalism, the second. The term
"interconnectedness" is too vague to discuss; if it means people depending on
each other, well, I've seen many claim over the years that cities are
isolating and true communities where neighbours rely on each other are a
suburban and rural phenomenon. I have no data either way. It seems easier to
reason about internationalism, and that claim is dubious.

 _Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation,
but don 't present it so that we can examine it critically._

I didn't pick any specific explanation because there are so many to pick from.

For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets
"ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is
that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from
ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting
to the concerns that this has caused. Obviously power being held by elites is
a feature of many eras in history, has never been popular with the common man,
and has nothing in particular to do with population growth or decline.

~~~
woodandsteel
_Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace for the
first time since the pre-industrial era._

That's very recent, and it effects only a very small portion of the
population.

 _Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural
areas to the cities in the past. It 's not so clear it still means that now._

The article is about trends that we have seen so far. You are speculating
about the future.

 _And as for falling fertility rates, that 's surely more related to
improvements in healthcare._

Not just healthcare. Having a lot of children is economically beneficial to
farm families, it is a great expense for modern urban ones, and so they have
greatly reduced how many they have.

 _but I was talking about internationalism_

Cities are booming because factories and big businesses are located there, and
these are all involved in economic activity involving the nation, and usually
other nations too. Internationalism is the philosophy that this is a good
thing.

 _For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets
"ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is
that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from
ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting
to the concerns that this has caused._

I agree with that. The thing is, for most of history, wealth was in the land,
and the elite were landed aristocrats. With industrialization, wealth has
moved largely to cities, and so that is where the elites live, and the people
in the countryside have become much poorer, and so they often become
populists.

------
ramblerman
The word 'populism' just seems to be used as a derogatory slur these days, for
any party opposite to the person making the argument.

Webster defines it as:

populism - the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the
common people in their struggle with the privileged elite

------
zerostar07
cant read - Does this happen in europe too?

~~~
lainga
Article says that the trend of nationalism is one of the most surprisingly
international phenomena today - observed across the West except for Japan.

------
Bucephalus355
>“The trend toward population decline, set off by a sustained decrease in
fertility rates beginning in the 1960s, has been driven to a significant
extent by increasing prosperity and life span.”

In the US, I’m pretty sure it’s because ppl can’t afford to have kids.

~~~
stevep001
After a certain point, family size is negatively correlated with income.
[http://m.startribune.com/minnecensus-family-size-and-its-
rel...](http://m.startribune.com/minnecensus-family-size-and-its-relation-to-
income-in-minnesota/171194091/)

