Taiwan is running low on engineers

TSMC has turned itself into Taiwan's number one form of national security. Their employees see themselves as martyrs who are actively saving the country from being invaded by China. Same sort of motivation that islamic jihadists use.

because they offer crazy salary in Taiwan. most of engineering will leave when they earned enough money and work in small company.

Step one is drawing in workers from other companies that are not willing to pay more.

In theory we could reach a point where all the workers are doing so well that even large pay won't draw them in. But companies don't wait to get anywhere near that point to start complaining about how they "can't" hire.

> Are you gonna argue with the God of invisible hand?

Especially when you consider modern talk of the invisible hand, and then go back to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and see his one reference to the invisible hand in the book is of something that is against free trade between nations.

Big fan of nvidia and asrock motherboards !

It is, though it has locations elsewhere. https://ubiquity.com/company/locations/

You should read books by Eric Kaufmann, specifically "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth". It predicts exactly as you say, that countries will continue to become more religious, not less, the current trend of secularization is but a short lived burst in history.

Irreligion is a demographic/social dead end, it will only dramatically accelerate with AI entertainment. Imagine a virtual AI harem on demand for any willing male, more beautiful than any human female, not only understands every nerdy random topic you can come up with, but is patient enough to discuss with you for hours, and of course no risk of divorce/disloyalty. A simple mirror will be found from the female side too.

The groups most resistant, are those who reject modern communications technology, like the Amish.

In the end it is natural selection at work. Irreligious people are maladapted to the modern environment. Its ironic, but also beautiful in a sense.

However, society generally doesn't function by having pure religious ultraconservatives (See starving Afghanis). Israel's secular workers produce most of the GDP and high-tech industries. In the end, the stable equilibrium, will be a majority religious population that continues to reproduce, but each generation, a substantial amount defect to secularism, and go work in the cities, to continue the economy. The secular won't really reproduce, but the nation as a whole does.

That's beautiful in its own way.

The math doesn't work though. 50% defection rate and only 50% higher birth rates won't work. If the average woman has 2 children, the religious subgroup one would have 3. On average, 1.5 of those would defect, so the average woman produces more members of her group.

This is borne out by the data. If you look at the ASRI, from 1990 to 2008, the percentage of LDS (and other similar groups) has remained stable in the US.

Only Islam and Buddhism saw (very minor) growth, the rest was a massive surge in secularism.

> as I result I can see secularism dying out long term

It won't die out for the same reason homosexuality doesn't. Recruits will be poached from the other team.

> These two groups also have high defection rates of around 50%

Not even close. Orthodox Jews is closer to 15%, and of those a majority stay within the Jewish community, but are less Orthodox. i.e. still religious just less so (eg. observe the major holidays, but not necessarily the day to day stuff, or maybe some of the day to day stuff that feels meaningful to them, but not everything).

> I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. There's something in between Orthodox and completely secular.

You are also ignoring the dynamics - people are constantly shifting, there is never a stable equilibrium.

If you see a non religious society as dying out, does that not make you think that perhaps secularism is incorrect? What functional society would let itself die out?

> These two groups also have high defection rates of around 50%,

Mormons and Modern Orthodox Judaism may well have high defection rates, but there are other conservative religious subcultures with much lower defection rates: both the Old Order Amish, and Hasidic/Haredi/ultra-Orthodox Judaism, have retention rates >80% (sometimes even >90%, depending on whose figures you go by).

Why the difference in defection/retention rates? I think a big factor is both groups are more segregated from the mainstream – linguistically, geographically, and by lifestyle – which makes defection more costly, and hence discourages it. A related factor is that they both ostracise apostates – although, contrary to some perceptions, neither (in practice) completely bans contact between apostates and their families still inside, but they do put various limitations and restrictions on it.

> but if current trends continue (always a big if in demographic studies)

The idea that Old Order Amish or ultra-Orthodox Jews are some day going to abandon their established way of life is rather low. I don't think it would happen without some major external stressor forcing them into it – and even then, many of them will do everything they can to resist.

I think current trends of secularisation and social liberalisation are likely to plateau at some point (probably very soon if not already). Secular progressive daydreams of "total victory" – religious conservatives dwindle and die out – are unlikely to ever come to pass.

> I’m concerned that us secularists have no good answer to why anyone should have children and as I result I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy. If anyone has any answers I’d love to hear them,

How do you define "secularism"? It is possible to believe in the existence of the "supernatural" yet also believe that mainstream society should strive for neutrality on questions about its nature – does that count as "secular"? In principle, I can't see why such a belief can't be pro-fecundity. It probably still can't compete at that with religious ultra-conservatives, but it still could do much better in that department than the current secular mainstream does.

>I myself am secular, strongly so. My wife is just as strongly religious and her fertility rate is over three times our national average at her insistence which I voluntarily agreed to. I’m concerned that us secularists have no good answer to why anyone should have children and as I result I can see secularism dying out long term, which I consider a philosophical tragedy.

Exactly: within a few centuries, most people will be extremely religious. However, with geopolitical struggles, the ubiquity of nuclear weapons, and the inability of religious extremists to get along with others, we'll end up with a planet-scale nuclear war that will extinguish human civilization.

The "effective" population will equalize much faster. SK has extremely high longevity, which is a success, but it means that 9 million of those are already de-facto out of the workforce and are a liability, not an (economic or military) asset.

North Korea has really low longevity, which is bad, but it means that more of those 25 million are young.

SK only has some 3 million fighting age men. And every year more age out than age in.

That's all that matters to the border in the end. Doomed nation without changing course.

one big incentive would be to shut down social security or old age pensions, as to make people more self-reliant for their own sustainment instead of an abstract system of relying on other future abiding citizens, a system that in most countries is near bankruptcy bcs people lost one drive to create the next generation. tragedy of the commons?

That's the next person's problem.

I hear the next person's name is tomorrow.

That’s not new:

Religious fanatics preaching the end of the world versus those building up progress is as old as recorded history.

Removing the religious trappings doesn’t change the behavior.

> treating men and women like they are the same is the first problem

Russia is rather socially conservative and their birth rates are low as well. It's quite a stretch to blame low birth rates on gender equality given the scope of cultures and societies where low birth rates have been a problem. Some other common factor would seem much more likely. Maybe economic incentives.

Unless you also think Russia is too progressive for you tastes. If so, what does your ideal social system look like with respect to the enforcement of gender roles, where women are expected to bear 3 or more children? What would enforcement of these roles look like in the society you're envisaging?

If you could honestly and clearly answer those questions I'd be very impressed. Then, I would follow it up with: and do you think many people would enjoy living in the society you've just dreamed up?

If yes, is there a status quo ante that was similar to what you're describing (seems likely given that women's emancipation is fairly recent and lots of different patriarchal structures have been tried out over the millennia)? Can you try to trace out why that status quo was left behind in favor of where we are now?

If no, how do you plan to persuade people to live less comfortably so that birth rates are as high as you'd like to see them? Persuasion is your only tool, because you've already said that you don't think government is the answer, and, without persuasion, you'd need to use force. To use force you'd need the government to act in some capacity, or at least _not_ act in a way that's complicit e.g. by not prosecuting honor killings carried out against anti-natalist daughters and sisters or at least condoning discrimination against childless women.

This is absolutely a governmental issue- S Korea and the US are similar in that people are having fewer children in these places because having children is prohibitively expensive. Having children is prohibitively expensive because income inequality is at an all time high - a smaller and smaller portion of people are able to capture more and more of the resources. Income inequality is a direct result of government policy and can be mediated with changes to those policies. It's happened before, and it can happen again.

Funny, many of the places with the lowest birth rates are actually very socially conservative, with poor track records on gender equality. Japan, Korea, Russia, etc.

I've heard people argue the exact opposite - intense work cultures tire out the male working class. That combined with a gender culture that discourages women being forward with their intentions, and no way to meet people of other genders socially, means it becomes difficult to actually meet or date people. There is a lack of free time, a lack of opportunity, and a lack of motivation.

Frankly, it sounds to me like the issue would be solved by bringing in better working conditions.