Does America really need a rapidly increasing population to prosper?
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.
The underlying factors behind economic growth are the advance of technology and technique, increases in worker productivity, and new investment creating more wealth. Demographics have no effect on this, and its effect on the economy is small at best; the only supporting argument the population=wealth crowd has is Japan's horrible economic experience, but despite "much more favorable demographics" America's performance has been similar. We'll compare the per capita GDP growth of America and Japan, and then five other developed countries with demographics similar to Japan (low birth rates, stagnant or shrinking populations) over the 2000s:
I would like to refer you to "Understanding Japan: A Cultural History" featuring professor Mark J. Ravina. It's part of the Great Courses series, available from audible.com. If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, check out Chapter 22: Japan's Economic Miraclem and Chapter 24: The Making of Contemporary Japan. Japan tried to be an imperial military culture, but that didn't work out. Then they tried to be an economic superpower, but that didn't work out. Contrary to what economists would have you think, quality of life in Japan has actually improved since the Nikkei collapse of 1989. Life expectancy has grown. Now the Japanese have the longest life expectancy in the world. The murder rate among young men is 10% of what it was in 1965. Japanese consumers have become extremely frugal, and living in Japan is actually quite affordable. Not surprisingly, it turns out that if consumers limit their consumption, their economic well-being improves.
That is only "horrible" from the viewpoint of profiteers who expect to get rich from continual appreciation of resources and expansion of markets.
When I was born in the 1950s America had about 150 million people, now we have over 320 million. Because people are living longer and we are being flooded with immigrants who have larger families, America will have over 500 million people when my kids are my age. After that, who knows. The more people there is the more woman there is to have babies and population growth will build on an ever larger group of people. Compounding on it self until eventually we are going to be just like India and China with over a billion people.
The good news for me is I am old and will not have to face an America with a billion people, but my grandchild who was just born may see it, or his children may. What a scary thought.
Economists tell us a rapidly growing population helps our economy. So when we have a billion people, everyone in America will be rich?
Obviously, just the opposite. We now know the idea that population growth = prosperity was a myth; the economy over the last 30 years proves that. In fact, since open-door immigration flooded the workforce and destroyed the bargaining power of labor, population growth actually destroyed working class prosperity in the U.S.
Somehow we are fed the idea that the payroll taxes of the imported masses of uneducated, desperate people will somehow keep the nation (and the Ponzi Scam of Social Security) afloat--when in reality it is everyone accepting the illusion of wealth created by trillions in printed fiat currency that has allowed the system to stumble along without a functional economy for so long already.
I would like to refer you to "Understanding Japan: A Cultural History" featuring professor Mark J. Ravina. It's part of the Great Courses series, available from audible.com. If you don't want to listen to the whole thing, check out Chapter 22: Japan's Economic Miraclem and Chapter 24: The Making of Contemporary Japan. Japan tried to be an imperial military culture, but that didn't work out. Then they tried to be an economic superpower, but that didn't work out. Contrary to what economists would have you think, quality of life in Japan has actually improved since the Nikkei collapse of 1989. Life expectancy has grown. Now the Japanese have the longest life expectancy in the world. The murder rate among young men is 10% of what it was in 1965. Japanese consumers have become extremely frugal, and living in Japan is actually quite affordable. Not surprisingly, it turns out that if consumers limit their consumption, their economic well-being improves.
That is only "horrible" from the viewpoint of profiteers who expect to get rich from continual appreciation of resources and expansion of markets.
Housing in Japan isn't all that affordable. They spend 22% more income on housing than we do in the United States, and if you've spent any time in Japan you know that housing is quite small. Japan today is MUCH more affordable than it was a decade ago, but it's still expensive in Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka. A decade ago, Tokyo was the most expensive city in the world to live in.
I wouldn't say I disagree with you, but Japan went through a period of getting worse before getting better. The relatively affordable cost of living, at least compared to what it was in the '90s and 2000s, housing is a result of the Lost Decade and asset depreciation. Culturally, there's just a lot of differences. One of the reasons recessions are so bad in America is sticky wages. We're basically reliant on appreciation to gradually erode purchasing power and lower real wages over time to hit market employment. Japan doesn't have that.
It's simple supply and demand. When the supply of workers exceeds the demand for their services, they are non-productive. It is no fault of theirs, their jobs have simply been deleted. Look at the percentage of the population that is gainfully employed over years if you don't believe me. A smaller percentage every year can actually find work.
That is a pretty short-term trend, reflecting a mammoth recession and terrible government policy (insurance mandates etc.). In the 1960s and 1970s, the percentage of people working increased dramatically because women were entering the paid workforce. The peak percentage was in the late 1990s.
That is a pretty short-term trend, reflecting a mammoth recession and terrible government policy (insurance mandates etc.). In the 1960s and 1970s, the percentage of people working increased dramatically because women were entering the paid workforce. The peak percentage was in the late 1990s.
So a trend 20 years long is "short term?" The late 1990s was just when automation was going mainstream. It's when the last of the entry level business jobs were deleted, and a high school education became no longer adequate to find an office job. The retail sector continues to shed jobs, often where you never see it, by automating warehouses and inventory control. There is a finite limit to the number of "service jobs" that the economy can absorb.
The problem with economists is that they don't engage reality. They think of people as "consumers," when in reality more and more of the population is being ejected from the economy and is living on social safety net subsidies.
So a trend 20 years long is "short term?" The late 1990s was just when automation was going mainstream. It's when the last of the entry level business jobs were deleted, and a high school education became no longer adequate to find an office job. The retail sector continues to shed jobs, often where you never see it, by automating warehouses and inventory control. There is a finite limit to the number of "service jobs" that the economy can absorb.
The problem with economists is that they don't engage reality. They think of people as "consumers," when in reality more and more of the population is being ejected from the economy and is living on social safety net subsidies.
Yes, 20 years is short term, especially when you consider that the workforce was really bloated in 1999. You can only work so hard before childrearing and leisure begin to suffer. The long-term trend is that our ancestors did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown so they could survive, and each generation works less and less for an increasing standard of living.
I am an economist and I don't think of people as "consumers."
We could have a discussion about whether low-skilled workers are being ejected from the economy or are responding to incentives (the social subsidies) not to adjust to changing skill requirements. It's a little of both. I'd hate to be a 90 IQ worker in today's environment. But we can do better than to hand people money and tell them that they're too stupid to do any useful work.
What exactly about the economy over the last 30 years proves it?
You don't need population growth for a prosperous economy.
You need population growth to keep social programs going.
The social programs we have today weren't common throughout most of human history, when world population was pretty stable. Once we discovered oil, plastics etc that gave us the modern stuff we have and the population started shooting upwards, that's when we invented the social programs we have today.
I'd make the argument that prosperity and sustainability are two completely different things. We need LESS people for sustainability. I could care less if business becomes prosperous or not, if it's at the expense of the greater human cause.
Anyway most of the people are moving to america for higher studies and jobs. so population rate will be high.
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.
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.
