U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:00 AM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,023,452 times
Reputation: 6377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
This discussion has basically broken down into 2 groups; one group is stating the facts about cause and effect, and what is really happening to real people on a daily basis.
What facts? All I got was blow hard BS, insults and post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacies. Your whole argument is population causes poverty. What is the population density of Japan vs Congo?




Quote:
The other group is on some hypothetical rant about what if's, and postulating about theories.
That's you and here you go again not defending the argument but attacking your opponent to cover up your massive personal defects.


Quote:
The facts of the matter are obvious for anyone whose name is not Sheldon, and who has ever actually travelled to the places in the world that have been decimated by overpopulation.
Anecdotal evidence is crap. Your argument is you see people jammed together in certain urban areas therefore over population is the cause of poverty. That's a real sophisticated argument. Really, pat yourself on the back pal. You are a genius.


Quote:
Some of us have seen the plywood shacks so densely packed together they encroach on the roads where cars and trucks whizz by inches from where children sleep, or people who live on railroad tracks or on floating garbage heaps in polluted rivers because there is literally no place else to live. That is real, that is what results from overpopulation. It is not an economic theory it is something that causes hundreds of billions of people to live in squalor, hunger, and disease, without hope, simply trying to survive another day.
Yes its the same thing that happened in Britain during the industrial revolution 200 years ago when people lost their farms and were driven to the urban areas and had to work for wage slave labor. Clearances in Scotland? Ever hear of it? What did you think Charles Dickens was writing about? This has been discussed for years by economists and just about every other historian of the industrial revelation.


BBC - History - British History in depth: Beneath the Surface: A Country of Two Nations


Probably never even occurred to you I am not arguing for more people. I am arguing the fact that the primary cause of poverty is population. It never has been. It has been shock or displacement from disasters, war and rapid economic change ironically during the advancement of technology. Sort of odd that the very rich always appear right next to the urban poor.

But why bother to look? you have it covered cause you saw some poor people.

Last edited by gwynedd1; 02-16-2013 at 09:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:11 AM
 
621 posts, read 547,195 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
I'm really not addressing the rest of the world in any of my comments. Just the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
If something I've said isn't clear or you want to critique a point... fine.
Quote me and ask or quote me and comment with your own view.

I'd appreciate you not attempting to interpret my meaning or "translating" my words.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post

Though resources are absolutely a part of it... the far larger issue is that the lack of meaningful
work (challenging AND rewarding) for the (30-40%?) portion of the population at the lower end...
puts too large a social support burden on the rest of us to do so much for so many.
You have stated the the population is to large in the US. You have stated that the US would be better off at a smaller population than the current one. You have just stated that the bottom end puts a burden on the rest of us. Adding this up you are saying that the reduction in population should happen at the bottom end. Have I misread anything you've posted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
Those people can be taught skills.
Yeah? How has that worked out so far?
Looking at how the system has been set up, who has put money into setting it up the way they want it, and the result, I'd say that Carnegie and Rockefeller are getting what they paid for when they set up their foundations to “help” education. That you are getting 47% illiteracy out of Detroit is by design. The alternative to this is that those two were good at business and are bad at philanthropy. I can see a rich person saying “I don't want my tax dollars going to give one of 'those people' a good education.” and then putting their money where their mouth is. Two congressional investigation 50 years apart determined that the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations were bad for education in America.
Quote:
Yeah? How has that worked out so far?
I'd say acording to their plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post

Meanwhile... I'll keep holding up the mirror.
You can decide what you see in it.
I've asked that if you really feel so deeply that the US is over populated the you should reduce its population by leaving.


That mirror you are so proud of is a bit distorted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:21 AM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,023,452 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Do we have to wait until there is an immediate crisis to discuss the problem?

Do we have to wait until there is an immediate crisis to consider the cause?
Do we have to wait until there is an immediate crisis to consider the effect?
Do we have to wait until there is an immediate crisis to consider alternatives?

Tell us.. how foul must the water be before you say it's time to do something?
Can you say Cuyahoga?
No but the cause of poverty isn't over population. There are side effects of it , but poverty is not inherently one of them. We don't need to think of a solution. We see it now in states like Brazil and Mexico which have rapidly slowed. We already saw in in the developed West. Children are opportunity costs in industrial societies and social safety nets reduce the need for people to have retirement security from their own children etc. Impoverished societies also have little access to contraception. Based on those facts it would appear that poverty is a cause of over population which means the classic correlation causation fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:29 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
You have stated the the population is too large in the US...
relative to the available work demand

You have stated that the US would be better off at a smaller population than the current one.
it would be.

You have just stated that the bottom end puts a burden on the rest of us.
It does; as it always has.
Today's issue is the relative scale of that "bottom end"


Adding this up you are saying....
There you go with those conclusions again.

Don't tell... ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:32 AM
 
621 posts, read 547,195 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
... That is real, that is what results from overpopulation. It is not an economic theory it is something that causes hundreds of billions of people to live in squalor, hunger, and disease, without hope, simply trying to survive another day.
OK in this discussion one person said that during the great depression we were over populated. Before it we weren't after it we weren't. So during it the over population was because of lack of demand for labor not from the number of people per-say. That was in the US.


So that parts of the world are in a state of permanent economic depression is not proof of to many people it is proof of to low a demand for labor.


The world's economy can very easily be manipulated so that there is a high demand for labor every where.


It is not a numbers thing it is a ratio thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asderfut View Post

Addendum:
First, 40% over forty years is not as simple as 40%/40=1%, it is in fact the fortieth root of 1.4, subtracting one and multiplying by 100, which comes out to about a 0.85% growth rate per year, whereas 100% over sixty years is about 1.16%. I have no issue with the point, just a correction on the math.
Thank you for showing the correct way to do the math. I haven't had statistics, nor have I studied compound interest that deeply.


But it is the ratio of clean water to people that determines public health, not the absolute number of people per square foot. It is the number of people per $1 million demand for labor, not the number of people per say. , that determines economic depression or a booming economy. The math behind the ratio isn't that important. Lots of clean water for lots of people means we don't get dysentery. Very little clean water for lots of people means you do. Very little money per 1,000 workers means that you have poverty, lots of money per 1,000 workers means you don't. We are printing a lot of money currently. With that money we could buy world wide prosperity if we wanted too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:33 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29220
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
No but the cause of poverty isn't over population.
Who said it was?

There are side effects of it, but poverty is not inherently one of them
Perhaps... but it's surely the most common of the inherent side effects.

Impoverished societies also have little access to contraception.
Based on those facts it would appear that poverty is a cause of over population
which means the classic correlation causation fallacy.
Who are you talking to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:34 AM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,023,452 times
Reputation: 6377
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive...vn126manupured


The Harvard researchers concluded that the villagers were not so ignorant after all. Family size had always been controlled with crude methods such as abstinence and self-induced abortion. Increasing prosperity caused people to want smaller families, because there was less need for children to work in the fields or support parents in their old age. Once that happened, birth rates went down. Modern contraceptives helped them go down more easily and quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:36 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pie_row View Post
With that money we could buy world wide prosperity if we wanted too.
And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:44 AM
 
17,749 posts, read 15,023,452 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Who are you talking to?

Were we just supposed to be your audience? As far as I am concerned anyone who uses intuition for their arguments is a target. Simple correlation = causation arguments are the classic case that hacks fall prey. That is besides the point we see abject poverty in sparsely populated areas. Appalachia was not over populated. Poverty has complex causes. Economies of scale and technology move in one direction while basic resources move in another. Human behavior is also rather complex and needs observation. We have observed and population is as much caused by poverty as it is ever a cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:48 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,118,692 times
Reputation: 5171
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
What facts? All I got was blow hard BS, insults and post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacies. Your whole argument is population causes poverty. What is the population density of Japan vs Congo?






That's you and here you go again not defending the argument but attacking your opponent to cover up your massive personal defects.




Anecdotal evidence is crap. Your argument is you see people jammed together in certain urban areas therefore over population is the cause of poverty. That's a real sophisticated argument. Really, pat yourself on the back pal. You are a genius.




Yes its the same thing that happened in Britain during the industrial revolution 200 years ago when people lost their farms and were driven to the urban areas and had to work for wage slave labor. Clearances in Scotland? Ever hear of it? What did you think Charles Dickens was writing about? This has been discussed for years by economists and just about every other historian of the industrial revelation.


BBC - History - British History in depth: Beneath the Surface: A Country of Two Nations


Probably never even occurred to you I am not arguing for more people. I am arguing the fact that the primary cause of poverty is population. It never has been. It has been shock or displacement from disasters, war and rapid economic change ironically during the advancement of technology. Sort of odd that the very rich always appear right next to the urban poor.

By why bother to look you have it covered cause you saw some poor people.
In case you have lost track the subject of this discussion is if the world is overpopulated, and the answer is yes.
Is every place in the world overpopulated? No
Is much of the world overpopulated? Yes
As a whole, does the level of population add to suffering? Yes.
If there was a fair distribution of wealth thruougt the world would it aleviate suffering ? Yes
Is that ever going to happen? NO
Would lowering the population in areas that are overpopulated increase the overall standard of living? Yes

If you ever decide to get off your pretentious ass and to see for yourself the situation in living areas of overpopulation in countries where people not only do not have enough to eat, they do not even have a few square feet of land to erect a hovel, then I will have some respect for your opinion. As it is, you are talking out your ass about something you have no practical knowledge of whatsoever.
The world as it is today has finite resources, that is a fact. The majority of those resources are hoovered up by the wealthiest people, that is a fact. What is left over does not meet the needs of the majority of the population which lives in poverty. That is a fact.
You can postulate about if things were different, but that is an exercise in futility because it is not different, it is the way it is.
The current world population is 7 billion people. By 2045 there will be 9 billion. That increase alone, 3billion people is equivalent to the entire world population in 1960.
Water, food, medical care, and infrastructure are all already strained to the point of causing significant cost escalations putting these resources further out of reach of poor people worldwide.
Employment worldwide is decreasing and poverty is rising. These are all facts. If you cannot see the correlation between population and poverty then you are blind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top