Around the world, nativist ideas have rapidly grown in popularity. The fuel for this ideology’s popularity has, more than anything else, been fear. Both xenophobia and economic insecurity in the poorest segments of well-developed nations have catalyzed the vilification of immigration.

In America, the pro-immigration response has been muted. The argument has been largely ethical, full of callbacks to the nation’s founding and the morality of letting in those looking for a better life. Unfortunately, it seems that morals are not enough to promote legitimate change on Capitol Hill. Thus, an economic argument: Population and economic growth, at least in terms of GDP, are inexorably tied together. It is only logical that as a nation’s labor force increases, the amount that that labor produces (GDP) also increases. 

Both the American population and GDP growth have decreased substantially since the Baby Boom, at least in terms of the annual percent increase. Population growth quickly tapered off from 1.658% in 1961 to 1.13% in 1990 to 0.526% in 2018. Economic growth rate has been far more volatile but went from an average of roughly 6% in the early 1960s to 2.5% between 2010 and 2018. This is a pattern that has presented itself in almost every well-developed Western country. 

The two decades immediately following the Second World War saw unprecedented economic expansion through rebuilding efforts sponsored by government spending. Optimism regarding the economy and victory in the war sparked an enormous population increase.

Here we find a fork in the road.

Does an increase in quantity cause a parallel decrease in efficiency? One could argue that yes, an increase of labor without an increase in capital would do so — this is essentially the belief that immigrants are taking American jobs. This assertion is most commonly countered with the fact that immigrants generally take jobs that natural-born citizens do not want. However, in my opinion, this unsatisfactory argument is unnecessarily so. Is it not easier to argue that capital is not necessarily limited? The same politicians who are the most ardent supporters of the self-stabilizing properties of the market seem to forget that by those principles, capital should be produced to meet available labor. 

However, there is an instance where capital is painfully finite. Jobs associated with fossil fuels, those in the mining sector, and some factory jobs, cannot expand indefinitely. 

Thus, in a rather roundabout way, we find ourselves on the topic of renewable energy. Before us, we see a solution to finite capital, a renewable energy sector that promises new jobs whose creation is not limited by the government or the earth. This is an answer not just to climate change, but a way to quell the fear that leads to nativism.

Before us, we see a solution to finite capital, a renewable energy sector that promises new jobs whose creation is not limited by the government or the earth. This is an answer not just to climate change, but a way to quell the fear that leads to nativism.