U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2013, 10:15 AM
 
11,908 posts, read 14,386,346 times
Reputation: 7541

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmFest View Post
Why don't we start from the extreme case where everybody is old. Do you see a problem with that?

Now, let's say a realistic country has 20% of the population being old. So it has that problem but to a lesser degree.

Then the next country has 30% of the population being old. The problem gets worse.

Then the next country has 40% of the population being old. The problem gets even worse.
That is true. The elderly mostly don't pay much in taxes and much of what they consume is medical services. The really older ones don't even travel much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,894 posts, read 57,997,675 times
Reputation: 29341
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmFest View Post
Why don't we start from the extreme case...
Because it is the absurdum approach?

How about NOT starting with the extreme case?
How about starting with the marginal and surplus... and working back from there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 02:04 PM
 
Location: IN
20,184 posts, read 34,528,325 times
Reputation: 12519
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
why would you agree with that? he is suggesting that because he doesn't think other people's lives have meaning; that we should just conserve land. so his life is so wonderful but more people don't deserve life, their lives are less important than empty land.

its another extremely elitist and selfish attitude that someone can have because they are in the fortunate position of already having life and opportunity to enjoy it. that chance wasn't withheld from him, but he would hold it from others.
No, you are suggesting that, I never said that at all. The vast majority of Americans want access to conservation lands and outdoor recreation amenities. What you can't seem to grasp is that it actually takes capital, collaboration, and coordination between private and public entities to achieve desired conservation goals. Also, many areas of the country have seen population growth along with an increase in the amount of land conserved or protected. The selfish model would be to have a growth at all costs approach which most people do not prefer at all when alternatives are available.
It is an altruistic selfish viewpoint to assume that having an extreme pro-growth position is not selfish.

Last edited by GraniteStater; 11-28-2013 at 02:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 02:19 PM
 
2,409 posts, read 2,494,452 times
Reputation: 1807
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Because it is the absurdum approach?

How about NOT starting with the extreme case?
How about starting with the marginal and surplus... and working back from there?
I suppose you're confused about the definition of an absurdum argument. Absurdum is a proof by contradiction. What exactly in my approach has anything to do with contradiction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 02:50 PM
 
2,409 posts, read 2,494,452 times
Reputation: 1807
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
That is true. The elderly mostly don't pay much in taxes and much of what they consume is medical services. The really older ones don't even travel much.

The fundamental issue is that the old population cannot sustain themselves. The bigger the old population grows, the bigger portion of the young population will have to be devoted to sustaining them, and with low birth rate society will gradually run out of the human resources that are free to advance society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,745 posts, read 28,613,182 times
Reputation: 14646
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
No, you are suggesting that, I never said that at all. The vast majority of Americans want access to conservation lands and outdoor recreation amenities. What you can't seem to grasp is that it actually takes capital, collaboration, and coordination between private and public entities to achieve desired conservation goals. Also, many areas of the country have seen population growth along with an increase in the amount of land conserved or protected. The selfish model would be to have a growth at all costs approach which most people do not prefer at all when alternatives are available.
It is an altruistic selfish viewpoint to assume that having an extreme pro-growth position is not selfish.
but you are arguing against extreme positions that don't even exist. nobody suggests having a "growth at all costs approach." so why are you arguing against an approach that nobody has? i suggest more people is good; that doesn't mean im suggesting people just pop out as many babies as possible without any consideration to how to ensure that we can maximize their and everyone's quality of life. we can grow the population and continue to have a high quality of life.

oh and we may reach the point where we need to make some decisions regarding how much space we need for all the people we have. but we are nowhere near that point. i live in nj which is the most densely populated state in America and there are still plenty of areas with lots of open space. there is tons of open space in America and around the world. of course, while some of us (including myself) like to live in suburbs or rural areas; lots of people seem to like packing themselves into cities. so if they choose that; that's their decision and they can pack themselves in as much as they like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2013, 09:19 PM
 
349 posts, read 414,396 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmFest View Post
The fundamental issue is that the old population cannot sustain themselves. The bigger the old population grows, the bigger portion of the young population will have to be devoted to sustaining them, and with low birth rate society will gradually run out of the human resources that are free to advance society.
That would not happen, it goes against human nature. Human beings look forward to growth and development, not backwards to the past. The young population will simply advance society and leave the old population to their own devices. The best option for the old population would be to rely on technology and automation to make up for the labor shortage.

In order to allow for an expanding population to take care of the old population, the old population has to be financially capable of purchasing enough healthcare services to keep the expanded young population fully employed and at wages that allow them to enjoy a high standard of living and support their families.

Last edited by Cuero; 12-04-2013 at 09:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 02:30 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,761,562 times
Reputation: 22167
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
im not missing any of your genius points. its funny to see that im disagreeing with people and they want to believe im missing their brilliant points. i stopped quoting above with your line on "LIMITED water." the surface of the earth is 70% or so covered in water. we could expand our capacity to desalinate water and our LIMITED water supply becomes UNLIMITED. the resources aren't so limited, they may require certain shifts in how we acquire them but we can do it. the failures of certain people to be able to meet the needs of their people is their failure; not a lack of resources.
When too many people are unproductive -- like we're seeing in the USA, they will not work and will not pay taxes to build the infrastructure needed.

A growing population of impoverished non-productive types isn't helpful at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 04:47 PM
 
6,361 posts, read 7,344,952 times
Reputation: 10822
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
A growing population of impoverished non-productive types isn't helpful at all.
Exactly. Plus, Gross Domestic Product is essentially a meaningless figure when it comes to the economy. Economic analysis should be based on per capita measures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2013, 04:57 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,745 posts, read 28,613,182 times
Reputation: 14646
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
When too many people are unproductive -- like we're seeing in the USA, they will not work and will not pay taxes to build the infrastructure needed.

A growing population of impoverished non-productive types isn't helpful at all.
its not exactly mandatory that all growth in a population comes from "impoverished non-productive types." you just want to make that assumption because its convenient from your anti-growth position. i just googled the population of America in 1790 and it was 3,893,635. it appears we have about 308 million today. so we managed to add about 304 million people and we are still doing pretty good.
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