It's not going to be pretty.

I'm seeing housing prices in suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas dropping as lack of viable jobs in these areas combined with crushing commutes to cities makes these locations terrible for those still needing to work. There's an alarming number of people I've heard of commuting from West Virginia into DC and from Richmond into DC enduring 3+ hour commutes as cities that used to be self-sustained economies now become suburbs of the largest cities, and the trend is going to continue with a few deviants that buck the trend like remote workers or homesteaders.

Where I live, the local economy is driven by two demographics - tourists and local retirees sprinkled with some of the wealthiest households in the US living here part time to avoid paying state income taxes. Much of the US is eerily similar to this pattern and it's extremely depressing to think of a way out of the spiral where almost all of our money will go into paying outrageous mortgages / rent with lower-paying jobs and the few in the middle class are in finance, tech, or healthcare.

- Less developed nations will be transitioning to a population crunch (WSJ 2050) with huge ramifications on global economics/politics

- fossil fuels (especially oil) reaching depletion or becoming too expensive to extract

- climate change impact in full swing, serious disruption to even domestic agriculture

- Ubiquitous AI, and all the associated social unrest of a deprecated generation of workers

Ultimately there's just too many people. Society doesn't need 8 billion humans anymore, the US doesn't even need 300 million... Arguably what youre describing is an emergent solution to that problem. Now we've reached the point where the next generation will need to support their parent's slow death instead of raising the next generation of children... That's going to wreck society's ownership of the future in a big way.

(Mobile, excuse the poor formating)

This is self-contradictory. Society is exactly the humans that exist.

If the pessimists can quote fossil fuel depletion then surely I can optimistically promote fusion, carbon capture etc. Capitalism has been one of the greatest success stories of humanity.

If by "we", you mean "citizens in the most prosperous cities of the world", then yes.

If you mean "people in most of the USA", then I have some news for you: the train's wheels are locked, and sparks are flying while everything skids to a stop. It's absolutely shocking how much of the country has declined in prosperity in my lifetime. The smaller cities near where I grew up -- places that were thriving small towns as recently as the 1980s -- are nearly all trapped in downward spirals of poverty, debt and addiction.

If you mean "the citizens of this planet", well...for most people, the train never left the station. Even in modern "success stories" like China, you don't have to try very hard to find appalling levels of poverty and despair. A few have become incredibly wealthy, but mostly, people are struggling to keep up. In the third-world? Forget it. Yeah, people can pay for cellphones now, while they're dying of preventable diseases due to filthy water.

Optimism is one thing, but it takes a Silicon Valley (aka Leibnitzian) view of the world to claim that this is a "golden age". Mostly, a select group of people are getting richer, while everyone else stagnates (or just barely inches forward).

Actually this isn't true. Middle classes in the developed world are doing poorly relative to the richest in the developed world, but global poverty is on a steep decline.

Throughout the developing world, economic development is pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty at breakneck speed. Check out some of the data here, for starters: http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...

This, I believe. Part of the driving force of the trends in global poverty is globalization. And despite what I said earlier about middle-class America, I don't necessarily cry for the loss of overall wealth in this country, if it means greater equity for the rest of the world (I just wish the richest people in the world were paying a greater share).

"global poverty is on a steep decline."

This is highly debatable. The data you linked to seems to be mostly based on the World Bank data -- a single, rarely modified, global metric of $1.25 (now $1.90) a day, using self-reported statistics. Meanwhile, regional context is critical -- for example, sub-saharan Africa has actually seen increases in poverty. In India and China, there's good reason to believe that wealth inequality is increasing [1]:

"the benefits of economic growth in many developing countries often accrue to the rich. In India and China, inequality has been increasing in recent years. From 1981 to 2010, the average poor person in sub-Saharan Africa saw no increase in their income even as economies expanded. Because there is no household data since 2012, it is impossible to know if these trends towards greater inequality have since changed."

Meanwhile, the metric itself is questionable (ibid):

"Someone living today at the new poverty line does not necessarily enjoy the same standard of living as someone at the old line did in the past, however....Looking at national price indices rather than PPPs, half of the world’s population live in countries in which $1.90 buys you less now than $1.25 did back in 2005, according to a paper released this week by Sanjay Reddy of the New School for Social Research in New York."

Even the World Bank itself acknowledges that poverty is on the increase in sub-saharan Africa (a region, which, by the way, has over a billion people, or 1/7th of the world's current population) [2]:

"However, despite its falling poverty rates, Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world for which the number of poor individuals has risen steadily and dramatically between 1981 and 2010. There are more than twice as many extremely poor people living in SSA today (414 million) than there were three decades ago (205 million). As a result, while the extreme poor in SSA represented only 11 percent of the world’s total in 1981, they now account for more than a third of the world’s extreme poor. India contributes another third (up from 22 percent in 1981) and China comes next, contributing 13 percent (down from 43 percent in 1981)."

In other words: it's great that more people are self-reporting as living on more than this bottom-of-the-barrel income metric, but it isn't really a counter-argument to my point, except to say that we've made the absolute poorest of the poor a bit less poor. Maybe. And mostly in China.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/finance-economics/21673530-num...

[2] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/04/17/re...

Your quotes highlighting the problems of SSA move quickly into using percentages of an overall number that has decreased - it acknowledges that in all other regions in the world poverty has fallen dramatically, especially in China where their middle class is now around 340 million.

That's a pretty meaningless claim. Again, the data you're leaning on to say that is using an exceptionally low bar, and it doesn't really take into account regional economic differences. The whole reason the World Bank had to raise it to $1.90 a day from $1.25 a day was because in many parts of the developing world, $1.90 a day buys you less than $1.25 did at the start of the measurements!

More importantly, $1.91 a day still makes for a pretty miserable life anywhere in the world. You're not magically on a trajectory to the middle class. You may be dying of waterborne illnesses and malnutrition, but you're not absolutely poor by World Bank standards!

The claim that there are far fewer poor people from 1820 to present is more reasonable, but the problem there is that the gains mostly came from things like "industrialization", which were big, one-time gains that, again, accrued mainly to the winners.

To quote Abebooks's description: "Critical Path is Fuller's master work--the summing up of a lifetime's thought and concern--as urgent and relevant as it was upon its first publication in 1981. Critical Path details how humanity found itself in its current situation--at the limits of the planet's natural resources and facing political, economic, environmental, and ethical crises.

The crowning achievement of an extraordinary career, Critical Path offers the reader the excitement of understanding the essential dilemmas of our time and how responsible citizens can rise to meet this ultimate challenge to our future."

Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired Magazine, believes the answer is overpopulation. He says it would be a disaster to stop population growth. Read more here:

https://edge.org/response-detail/23722

On the other hand, thats a good way to reduce humanity's contribution to climate change

Why do you associate the decline in population numbers with political unrest? Are you referring implicitly to the phenomenon of immigration to make up for the falling numbers and the typical and usual problems that come along with this development?

What do you think is going to happen when China finds itself with > 1 senior for every working age citizen, with a male-skewed population? Worse yet, what happens when China's heavy investments in AI/automation pay off? A dictatorship of 1 billion that has it's jobs permanently filled by machines while it's citizens struggle to raise their parents, working in overcrowded cities, with little hope for their own future? A country that's already rapidly depleting their agricultural resources through poor management, with dire projections ~20-50 years out?

That alone isn't a pretty picture.. But then remember that India's next door with similar problems, and the two aren't exactly buddy-buddy. Inevitably both countries will have to lean on regional allies to power through, but that might bring in the US (via S.K./Japan, today). And then we've got Russia upstairs, their future is a bit harder to see but today they're the nuclear-armed wildcard oligopoly... one that's not on friendly terms with the US's sphere of allies.

Then there's the middle east. If you think today's bad, wait until their oil money starts running out as climate change keeps turning up the oven. That's just adding fuel to the fires, millions of culturally alien people flooding relatively homogeneous societies already under pressure from their own needs.

And then Africa... yet another wild card. Today the various countries are in various states of development with mixed weak alliances to the East/West, but there's a massive population boom coming. No one is really certain where that's headed. Maybe it becomes the next China (selling environmental degredation and cheap labor), or maybe we'll end up with an under-developed continent of high unemployment/desertification. I'm really curious to see how the various countries land on that spectrum.

Taken alone, the Americas don't have a particularly risky looking future. South American drugs, guns, immigration, revolutions, old news for the US... though mass deforestation/desertification will be a tragedy with serious climate impact. Europe might build some walls but they're not going to war with each other again either. Australia probably won't play a big role unless it gets invaded. But the other big continents? I can't see the future, but today there are many red flags of something much worse.

The good parents will say, "Good! Don't sacrifice your chance for happiness for me. I'll make it through."

I know a lot of families taking on massive debt to help pay for their parent's old age. Five-Six figures here and there to extend their parent's lives by a decade or two, saddling themselves with debt and leaving the next generation with no assets... Likely after moving the entire family to a decaying suburban city. All so the previous generation can stick around with a much poorer quality of life.

Health care has a far larger impact than the number on the bill. We need to openly talk about life and accept the inevitableness of death.

It's so incredibly easy to say when you're simply throwing others lives away, rarely do people do it with their own.

Again, this is just my personal position regarding my life's value vs my descendants. I'm advocating the questions, not my answer.

This is a hard problem, which means the questions are hard to ask and the answers are difficult to accept... Death has never been easy. However it's a conversation that families and society at large need to have.

Culturally, we are lagging behind what science can do... We can do so much but never stepped back to ask if we should. Society needs to make conscious decisions instead of blindly following our biological instincts.

My skepticism is mostly around not the economics but the sheer accumulation of desperation in these small communities creating high corruption and theft rates ruining the efficacy of the concept.

When you take into account the amount of energy required to grow food, refrigerate it, ship it halfway around the world, and distribute it to stores, surely the amount of energy required to grow food locally is inconsequential.

You're still going to have to refrigerate and ship the stuff locally; Train and ship shipping are relatively cheap compared to the last mile shipping.

The banks will be extracting wealth from the fading boomers until their last breaths, leaving their children with no inheritances and a large debt of their own.

If the support ratio slips (ratio of working to non-working) then if we are to maintain the living standards of the non-working we either have to have a big productivity leap or lower living standards for those in work.

Reverse mortgages aren't going to cut it. And as you say, what then when the millenials have to hand over the keys to their parents' house?

Land isn't a thing of value in and of itself if we can't work it.

The only use ramping land value has is as an inflationary tax by private banks on workers.

My $0.02 on this is we give the boomers+ a massive haircut right now. Just pull the rug right out from under them, their politicians and their banks.

Buncombe county rank in state and per capita income: 19 Buncombe $25,665

The Vanderbilt family, descendants, and close associates have strong ties to Asheville and its economy, where the Biltmore estate is located.

I hate labels, but as someone from Gen-X, I've already got obligations supporting family, pretty much plan on making sure my immediate family is not dependent upon others, etc.

For saving up, moving to Europe isn't really an option (in another thread, someone indicated the huge difference in upper end engineering salaries between Europe and the US); however having an EU national spouse, we are definitely looking at retiring in Europe down the road.

It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out over time.

"Approximately 62% of Americans have no emergency savings for things such as a $1,000 emergency room visit or a $500 car repair, according to a new survey of 1,000 adults by personal finance website Bankrate.com. Faced with an emergency, they say they would raise the money by reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%)."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-payc...

18 Miles is not close!!! That's a commute. You have to commute to see your mother, or for her to see her grandchildren. I haven't traveled far and wide. But based on the few places I have been this is bizarre and unhealthy. In West Africa, parents either live with you or a few doors down. A few miles away at most, always within walking distance. I think this is the broad case across the planet and in human history. I also think it's way healthier.

18 miles could just be living in the next town over from your parents.

I guess that just goes to show you how skewed from the averages the set of people you know and interact with can be.

1) 30% of Americans have a college degree of any kind (inc. associates, etc.) 2) Median household income is $50k yearly nationwide. It's $50k in NYC and $70k in SF. 3) Median single person income is $32k nationwide.

People of the same socioeconomic group tend to associate with each other, because of work, similar interests, etc. This is basically a clustering effect.

In terms of living distance from parents, if you live in an area where people tend to flock to (because that's where the jobs are, or other reasons), then it's further likely your friends will be in the same boat as you.

More reasons why anecdotes don't necessarily match the overall population statistics.

* Note: Massive generalizations in my above statements.

Although the 25 miles in the Great Plains states shown in the article is still surprising to me. As anyone who's lived in those states will attest, 25 miles is nothing.

Happy holidays everyone!

I'd love to go back to the rural area I grew up in - it's a much better quality of life, stuff is half or one-quarter of the price they are in an urban area, and there's 1/100th of the population. But there's almost literally no employment opportunities. The one major paper mill in the area is folding, and there's going to be an exodus as the hundreds of people people that work there, and the thousands in the supporting industries, get laid off (not to mention further downstream effects, like school teachers or healthcare workers that become redundant as population crashes). There's nothing that's going to fill that void.

- Affordable suburbs usually carry lengthy commutes of unpleasant stop-and-go driving. City dwellers can walk to work or read on a train. Lower commute time is strongly associated with overall happiness. I share your preference for driving over public transit, but not in commuter traffic.

- Children have essentially no independent mobility until age 16, and then only if they have their own cars. In the suburb I grew up in, I'd estimate that mothers spend ~30% of their waking hours driving their children around.

- Though there may be good restaurants, art, theater, museums, etc. in the city, going to such things becomes a special occasion. Life instead centers around malls and multiplexes.

- Many find sleepy streets dull, uninspiring, even suffocating. For some, proximity to centers of human activity is a great deal more valuable than space.

- If you live in a city, you can go out drinking without committing DUI or spending $40 on a taxi.

- Many find the maintenance of a house, tons of unnecessary rooms, a lawn, etc. to be an unbearable and outrageously expensive bore that provides no value. I can think of many things I'd rather do on a weekend than put new siding on my garage, and many things I'd rather do with 5 figures than fix my roof. My home is a place to eat and sleep; I'd much rather invest time and energy and pride into other things.

No need to understand German: Scroll to page 14 (of PDF). For Germany about 42% of the adult children live either at their parents ("Koresidenz") or within 5km of their parents. European average is 45%.

Europe's young adults living with parents - a country by country breakdown (2011)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/mar/24/young-a...

What I find more interesting is how many people don't move far from where they are born and even more who never travel outside of their state.