Next 150 years will belong to USA. Most contestors (China, Russia...

I mean, Latin Americans are the closest people to being Western, that aren't by all definitions, except arguably Japanese and South Koreans.

There is pretty much no cultural resemblance with Chinese, Indians, Africans, and Southeast asians, and only mild similarities with Iranians and Arabs. If those people were coming in, the culture conflicts would be far more severe.

Out of all the (arguably) nonwestern people to flood your country, Latin Americans are a pretty alright deal.

Nah, in absolute numbers China looks better.
And they cancelled "One-child policy" recently.

I think it is more complex as you think desu. How many people predicted the fall of the Soviet union?

>Nah, in absolute numbers China looks better.

I wouldn't be so sure. China's whole economy is currently built on being the cheap labor pool for more developed countries' manufacturing needs. Those factories will go right back to those countries as soon as a robot becomes cheaper than a Chinese person. If China can't evolve their economy before then, their rise will stall out, probably for at least a generation or so.

China don't care about demographic impact. In chinese culture the young ones are meant to take good care of their elders. If anything, the one child policy has smoothed the demographic transition to one of sustainability from one of spiralling population explosion.

In a drastic manner ofc. But chinese are used to and can cope with all sorts of drastic shit.

Depends on if by Western you mean "Post enlightment" culture or "Greeco-Roman/Catholicism" culture

Maybe, but along comes crime and shit.

If anything, the Asians (indians/chinese/japs/koreans) would help out US the most by reducing crime, increasing productivity, creating more jobs, growth, etc.

They're already technological leaders in the scientific field and have the lowest ratio of crimes per continent/race/country.

Actually, their middle class is growing fast. This will be the next target or alternative target for them. If the growth continues, almost 80% of the Chinese will be in the middle class category. That is a HUGE market. Bigger than US and EU combined.

...

>80% Chinese be middle class.
Will the CCP explode and be overthrown and they'll lose all those middle class and shit? Wit the rise of the middle class comes more demands for freedoms and shit.

>Wit the rise of the middle class comes more demands for freedoms and shit
The old truisms will be tested by the growth of China. Everyone assumes with the rise of China's middle class, their government will crumble and give up. But as we see more and more, their government simply becomes more and more stronger.

I think the difference in perspective is whats causing this. The Chinese don't care about "freedom" in ideal sense. They care about practical freedom and practical needs. With the government lifting billion people out of poverty the focus is more on wellbeing of the billion han chinese rather than ideals like free speech, elections, etc. If their government doesn't fuck up majorly (or rather they can't cover up), then the Chinese people might change.

In my own perspective, the Chinese middle class won't care what type of government they have as long as they live in a better place. With the growth of China in military/economic area, they will very soon be the lords of Asia and challenge the US/EU in global power move.

We in the west might continue to believe that CCP China will crumble, but the reality might very well be the opposite and it could become even stronger.

The idea that asians are so much better in ways of immigration are fairly bent by the origins.

The asians people in the US come from 2 sources: people who started families here a long time ago, in rather smaller amounts than most periods of immigration in the US, and were naturalized due to being attacked when they displayed their home culture. And then the rich people of modern asian countries who can afford to cross the Pacific Ocean.

Latin Americans send their poor through a nearby border. The crime part is bloated as a result. If only the middle-class came, the main issue would just be the culture clash on corruption.

This

Crimes are much lower in the Asian countries compared to Latin america/US.

Your point could be valid if the Asian countries are crime ridden. India is major poverty central. Their crime rates (per 100k) are so much lower. SEA have near low crime rates compared to US/Latin. Don't even get me started on Japan/Taiwan/Singapore/China/etc Their crime rates are so low, they are in border line top tier. The only things holding them back from being a "best place to live" are government system and cultural differences.

Yes, being poor inclines you more into being a criminal, but thats not all that contributes to someone being a criminal. Their society, their culture, their families, relationship, outlook all contribute to that.

Thank you for posting this.

These graphs are so fucking biased, and OP if you think China won't surpass burgerland in ~20 years, you'd be retarded

Here's the issue. The developed west and those countries provide 2 different ways to reduce crime, that horribly clash.

The west generally reduces crime by making the population generally free and believe that certain nonviolent means like voting can change their society for the better (It's not a coincidence that sanders and trump, 2 candidates supported by people who feel voiceless in politics, have more violence in rallies). The latin american countries try to work in the same way, but the country often has too much corruption to make people feel like they have a voice.

Meanwhile, asian countries are collectivist. Instead of making people feel they can change society without violence, they establish strict social roles as the ideal of society, and prevent people from feeling their complaints are justified. China was confucian, then communist, and India has the remains of its strictly ordered caste system.

If you have a collectivist society come in large numbers to an individualist one, it WILL go badly.

>its collectivist, therefore lower crime rates don't count and therefore it will go BAD because REASONS
Okay kid. This goalshifting and baseless statements needs to stop

Its a generational graph of the population.

If there are less children than elders, then the economy will slow down and shrink. If there are less workers than those who live off of pensions/social security, then the system will be in trouble.

When that happens, there will be be chaos. This is what its showing. The future of EU/China is bit bleak due to next gen's ability to sustain the older gen.

They are also shitty immigrants on average.

People also ignore what immigration can do. America is only stable because of 3 million hispanics every year.

>China's economy is built on cheap labor

It's not 1990 anymore.

China's pollution is already horrible at $10,000 per capita.
Imagine $50,000 per capita with 2 billion people.

Hasn't happened so far.

China is a nation that should be 1 billion people. Once the massive population boom generations are gone, China will be a lot better off.

Middle class Latinos don't usually come to America. Why leave the country where you control everything to go to one where you are lower-class?

Nice shitpost

>muh demographics

Nigga, Japan is in a far worse position than these countries and it is still growing.

Producitivity growth matters a lot more than demographics. Meanwhile, robots and local production are actually making the value of labor far less valuable than just a decade ago.

Globalization as a process where cheap labor countries are our factory, is slowing down dramatically. 2014-2015 were the first years since 1945 where global trade fell consecutively.

This bodes poorly for India, Africa, and South Asia.

In a way, China has pulled the cheap labor development ladder up with them as they have developed.

Japan is slagging in its economics growth (negative growth). Its aging demographics are becoming an issue. Its been that way for a decade or so.

Except Japan's economy today is larger than it was at any time in history. And it has grown. About .3% a year since 1990. Not much. But combined with population decrease, the per capita growth has been better than America.

It's a meme that demographics are destiny. Maybe in 1800-2000, but nowadays robots are replacing humans. It's almost a death sentence to be a poor person without education in 2016.

Japan's workforce peaked in the early 2000's. Yet somehow the economy did horribly in the 90's and boomed in the mid 2000's.

Why? Well because the demographics don't decide the productivity growth.

One American is 20 times more productive than an Indian. We could have the population of Poland and still be worth more than India.

Having a growing population helps the growth rate of the economy, but by no means is it very important in 2016. Humans are becoming outdated.

>thread about the future
>better make it on the history board!

It is also about humanities
Sadly no one cares about the social sciences
But that has a reason

Yes and no.

If you'd remember 70's you'd say the same about Japan which was also the country that produced cheap knockoffs because of low labour costs. I don't see their economy collapsing, though their demography certainly is collapsing but for China it's not a problem(at least not now).

Do you volunteer as a cop by any chance?