>Back when America acquired Louisiana, Florida, Texas and California, we were demographically expanding, and citizens were eager for new land to settle.
Along these lines, I've observed before that if some new continent-sized, fertile and temperate terra nullius were somehow discovered today -- the equivalent of a new North America -- it would remain largely uninhabited for a very long time, by virtue of our low birth rates and the low marginal value of bringing additional farmland under cultivation so far from existing infrastructure.
So in a world where people are worth more than land, what happens if the US annexes all or part of the vast lands of Canada? The answer is that decline produces concentration: the predictable reaction by Canadians would be a mass migration southward, and most of the former lands of Canada would increasingly fade into decline and economic depression, at times worse than the worst of the Rustbelt.
Compare to East Germany, for example, which has lost something like 20% of its population since reunification and remains stubbornly poor despite massive investments. It's true that the gap in wages between the US and Canada isn't as large as in East vs. West Germany. But the gap in terms of warmth and sunshine is far larger.
The northern US generally has an advantage in wages over the southern US, which is the only reason the Sunbelt hasn't grown even faster. In the case of the Canadians, they could move to warmer climes (even if that means the northern US) AND earn more money. And since they would share a Federal government with the rest of us, they would have a weaker case for sticking around to enjoy the unique appeal of Canadian distinctives such as the healthcare system.
When Europe stumbled on the New World population was just a minor fraction of today's numbers. Yet plenty of people took the risk and braved the danger of settling the Americas. I think the same would happen today. Plenty of people feel "stuck" in life, unable to advance, denied respect and the ability to pursue their dreams. This is especially true of younger men. Some of whom would jump at the chance to start over in a pristine new world where they might have a better chance of rising high.
The difference is that America carried a large wage premium over Europe (which it retains to this day!) and 90%+ of the European population was farmers that could transplant most of their skills while acquiring land at rock bottom prices. Plus it wasn’t as capital-intensive. You needed an ox but not a tractor, combine, etc.
Being a pioneer today would be low-paying, hard, hard work. Anyone who could succeed at starting his own farm on a virgin continent today could achieve way more success as a commercial farmer in lots of other places, rich and poor. Farmers are dying off, rural areas emptying. If you want to reboot your life, there are tons of options.
Settling the New World was a brutal experience. Many people died. Many people gave up and went back home. But I think the urge to escape the confining limits of our world's economy and politics would still motivate the dissatisfied. Please note, I am assuming what was literally said above: that we somehow opened up new territory to settlement (maybe we find a way to migrate to alterna-Earths which are livable but human-less). Terraforming an alien planet would be a very different and difficult venture.
But yes, it is really, really, REALLY hard to work one's way up from the bottom today. Our current superstructure for that is heavily geared toward maintaining current elite (and even sub-elite) in their positions-- not unlike the social structures of class-stratified Europe from the Middle Ages down to the 20th century. here's no "lands of opportunity" these days where everyone starts out on the ground floor and no one has an advantage prepared for them.
You’re right that the New World was hard, and in the early centuries of settlement, had a higher death rate than the Old. But the Old World also had a very high death rate by our standards and was hard and Malthusian. The difference is you could get rich in the New World, so it was a high-risk, high-reward proposition. But today, there would be no easy path to riches as a pioneer in a New New World, because the economics don’t work out.
So long as we’re talking about America, there are a lot of paths to work your way up to a middle class income, coming from nothing, if you have a decent work ethic and at least average IQ and no addictions. All of them are far easier than the life of a pioneer.
Re: So long as we’re talking about America, there are a lot of paths to work your way up to a middle class income, coming from nothing
Well, yes it's possible, but I think you are very overoptimistic about how easy it is. Class boundaries really have hardened in this country over the course of my lifetime (I'm 57) and social mobility has dropped like a rock. The unionized industrialized jobs that allowed men with only a high school education to support a family and live a middle class lifestyle are mostly gone now. What's out there for such people are a lot of low wage dead end service jobs-- and many of them are in feminized workplaces where men do not do well. And there's a type of young man who wants to be challenged who wants to dare himself against hard things-- and to be his own boss. The vast majority of Europeans did not emigrate abroad-- it takes a certain sort of personality to want to strike out on one's own like that. And I see no reason not to believe we still have those people among us although we medicated them for ADHD and maybe diagnose them with spurious psychological disorders because they don't do well in our type of society-- and of course quite a few of them end up as petty criminals.
Aside from half of Alberta and most of the oped writers for the National Post, I'm not sure how many Canadians would welcome this. Americans are very different than Canadians. And half our cultural identity, if not more, is defining ourselves in opposition to you.
Why would the Atlantic Provinces become non-voting territories"? Except for Prince Edward Island, they are as populous as our smaller states. If WY is a state Nova Scotia should be too.
I can only assume that any large territory would only consider becoming part of America were they assured of receiving proper political representation. And that likely means adding another state. And that could well tip the balance of power. Just the thought of having to read the endless partisan takes on the matter makes my head hurt.
You mention some economic dimensions, but isn’t this really about China: can the US grow big enough to face down China without having to rely on allies?
And that last point puts me in the MAGA mind set. If you are what you eat, whom might we swallow while remaining ourselves? Greenland is small enough. Canada is culturally close enough. What about the UK? Ireland? Australia? New Zealand?
I liked the idea of imperial relationships. Every time the Olympics rolls around, I’m surprised at how people cheer on those hired guns who were granted citizenship in exchange for competing on the national team.
Just as with admitting Puerto Rico as a state it only tips the balance of power if the parties decided to petrify where they are at politically and not evolve to appeal to the new voters. This isn't a binary situation like slave vs free state was.
You’re right, of course. But it seems that an awful lot of effort is spent on what might tip the next election. And physically expanding the country will spark more battles than early voting.
Simple: no. Canada should not face even the slightest amount of pressure to allow its provinces to leave and join the US. It's an unworthy topic to bring up.
This is an interesting exercise.
>Back when America acquired Louisiana, Florida, Texas and California, we were demographically expanding, and citizens were eager for new land to settle.
Along these lines, I've observed before that if some new continent-sized, fertile and temperate terra nullius were somehow discovered today -- the equivalent of a new North America -- it would remain largely uninhabited for a very long time, by virtue of our low birth rates and the low marginal value of bringing additional farmland under cultivation so far from existing infrastructure.
So in a world where people are worth more than land, what happens if the US annexes all or part of the vast lands of Canada? The answer is that decline produces concentration: the predictable reaction by Canadians would be a mass migration southward, and most of the former lands of Canada would increasingly fade into decline and economic depression, at times worse than the worst of the Rustbelt.
Compare to East Germany, for example, which has lost something like 20% of its population since reunification and remains stubbornly poor despite massive investments. It's true that the gap in wages between the US and Canada isn't as large as in East vs. West Germany. But the gap in terms of warmth and sunshine is far larger.
The northern US generally has an advantage in wages over the southern US, which is the only reason the Sunbelt hasn't grown even faster. In the case of the Canadians, they could move to warmer climes (even if that means the northern US) AND earn more money. And since they would share a Federal government with the rest of us, they would have a weaker case for sticking around to enjoy the unique appeal of Canadian distinctives such as the healthcare system.
That’s a really good point about the likely depopulation of any Canadian provinces that joined the U.S.
When Europe stumbled on the New World population was just a minor fraction of today's numbers. Yet plenty of people took the risk and braved the danger of settling the Americas. I think the same would happen today. Plenty of people feel "stuck" in life, unable to advance, denied respect and the ability to pursue their dreams. This is especially true of younger men. Some of whom would jump at the chance to start over in a pristine new world where they might have a better chance of rising high.
The difference is that America carried a large wage premium over Europe (which it retains to this day!) and 90%+ of the European population was farmers that could transplant most of their skills while acquiring land at rock bottom prices. Plus it wasn’t as capital-intensive. You needed an ox but not a tractor, combine, etc.
Being a pioneer today would be low-paying, hard, hard work. Anyone who could succeed at starting his own farm on a virgin continent today could achieve way more success as a commercial farmer in lots of other places, rich and poor. Farmers are dying off, rural areas emptying. If you want to reboot your life, there are tons of options.
Settling the New World was a brutal experience. Many people died. Many people gave up and went back home. But I think the urge to escape the confining limits of our world's economy and politics would still motivate the dissatisfied. Please note, I am assuming what was literally said above: that we somehow opened up new territory to settlement (maybe we find a way to migrate to alterna-Earths which are livable but human-less). Terraforming an alien planet would be a very different and difficult venture.
But yes, it is really, really, REALLY hard to work one's way up from the bottom today. Our current superstructure for that is heavily geared toward maintaining current elite (and even sub-elite) in their positions-- not unlike the social structures of class-stratified Europe from the Middle Ages down to the 20th century. here's no "lands of opportunity" these days where everyone starts out on the ground floor and no one has an advantage prepared for them.
You’re right that the New World was hard, and in the early centuries of settlement, had a higher death rate than the Old. But the Old World also had a very high death rate by our standards and was hard and Malthusian. The difference is you could get rich in the New World, so it was a high-risk, high-reward proposition. But today, there would be no easy path to riches as a pioneer in a New New World, because the economics don’t work out.
So long as we’re talking about America, there are a lot of paths to work your way up to a middle class income, coming from nothing, if you have a decent work ethic and at least average IQ and no addictions. All of them are far easier than the life of a pioneer.
Re: So long as we’re talking about America, there are a lot of paths to work your way up to a middle class income, coming from nothing
Well, yes it's possible, but I think you are very overoptimistic about how easy it is. Class boundaries really have hardened in this country over the course of my lifetime (I'm 57) and social mobility has dropped like a rock. The unionized industrialized jobs that allowed men with only a high school education to support a family and live a middle class lifestyle are mostly gone now. What's out there for such people are a lot of low wage dead end service jobs-- and many of them are in feminized workplaces where men do not do well. And there's a type of young man who wants to be challenged who wants to dare himself against hard things-- and to be his own boss. The vast majority of Europeans did not emigrate abroad-- it takes a certain sort of personality to want to strike out on one's own like that. And I see no reason not to believe we still have those people among us although we medicated them for ADHD and maybe diagnose them with spurious psychological disorders because they don't do well in our type of society-- and of course quite a few of them end up as petty criminals.
Aside from half of Alberta and most of the oped writers for the National Post, I'm not sure how many Canadians would welcome this. Americans are very different than Canadians. And half our cultural identity, if not more, is defining ourselves in opposition to you.
I don't think many Canadians would welcome merging with the U.S. at all. I was interested in why some Americans fantasize about absorbing them.
Why would the Atlantic Provinces become non-voting territories"? Except for Prince Edward Island, they are as populous as our smaller states. If WY is a state Nova Scotia should be too.
Guys: I didn't write the tweet. I wrote the Substack post.
I can only assume that any large territory would only consider becoming part of America were they assured of receiving proper political representation. And that likely means adding another state. And that could well tip the balance of power. Just the thought of having to read the endless partisan takes on the matter makes my head hurt.
You mention some economic dimensions, but isn’t this really about China: can the US grow big enough to face down China without having to rely on allies?
And that last point puts me in the MAGA mind set. If you are what you eat, whom might we swallow while remaining ourselves? Greenland is small enough. Canada is culturally close enough. What about the UK? Ireland? Australia? New Zealand?
I liked the idea of imperial relationships. Every time the Olympics rolls around, I’m surprised at how people cheer on those hired guns who were granted citizenship in exchange for competing on the national team.
Re: And that could well tip the balance of power.
Just as with admitting Puerto Rico as a state it only tips the balance of power if the parties decided to petrify where they are at politically and not evolve to appeal to the new voters. This isn't a binary situation like slave vs free state was.
You’re right, of course. But it seems that an awful lot of effort is spent on what might tip the next election. And physically expanding the country will spark more battles than early voting.
Simple: no. Canada should not face even the slightest amount of pressure to allow its provinces to leave and join the US. It's an unworthy topic to bring up.