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 09-19-2018, 06:29 AM
 
2,359 posts, read 3,026,727 times
Reputation: 4591

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Population reduction reduces out-put.

Without all those Africans working in sub-Saharan Africa, you wouldn't have any coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar or metals and non-metallic minerals, not to mention various oils.

Population is not an issue, because as emerging- and developing-States enter the 2nd Level Economy, there is a fundamental shift in Society.

Children are no longer needed to work.

The initial transition into the 2nd Level Economy only requires some elementary school education, but to progress beyond that requires an increasingly educated work-force.

Soon, you need people with some high school, instead of a few years of elementary school, and then you need high school graduates, and then you need high school graduates educated at trade and technical schools, and then at universities.

The simple act of education delays both marriage and child-bearing, resulting in a decrease in the birth-rate.

The transition from the 1st Level Economy into the 2nd Level, and through the transition into the 3rd Level Economy results in wages generally doubling about every 10 years.

That, in conjunction with increased availability of consumer goods produced domestically or imported through trade generates Affluence.

As a Society becomes more Affluent, the focus shifts from family, and providing for it, to the individual, and the achievement of personal and professional goals.

The result is an incredibly low birth-rate to even a negative birth-rate.

Most foreign States should reach that point by the end of this Century, and global population will peak, and then flat-line or actually decline, but in no way is population a problem.



And freed up Labor to be used in other more important endeavors.

Really, producing plastic kitchen utensils is beneath your dignity.



They can move, just like Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis were smart enough to do.
That all sounded good when they taught it from a text book about 30 years ago. By far the biggest glaring flaw in all that nonsense is the fact that every single society regardless of how advanced, still has a percentage of population that is not going to put in the work to be educated. We still have a significant percentage of high school dropouts here in the US. Then you have those that just aren't smart enough to get a higher education. All of those people still need employment and with their education, level of intelligence and probably lack of ambition; producing plastic kitchen utensils is the job for them. My point being that we need the full range of employment opportunities because not everyone has what it takes to be an engineer or a doctor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2018, 07:42 AM
 
12,405 posts, read 9,195,957 times
Reputation: 8856
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6oo9 View Post
Is that the economic rule? It was said liberals in the past allowing cheap things coming into the country and stole the jobs, would things more expensive (through Trump tariffs) make things right?

Some say they have to be paid $45/hour to work, because rent has gone up.
And yet the unemployment rate stays comparable to national norms, even in areas with astronomically super-high rents. Methinks high costs don't reduce unemployment (or at least don't reduce it detectably).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 08:41 AM
 
6,992 posts, read 6,629,325 times
Reputation: 5274
It's called the Phillips curve.

Last edited by lchoro; 09-19-2018 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,007,246 times
Reputation: 3776
Quote:
Originally Posted by dijkstra View Post
That all sounded good when they taught it from a text book about 30 years ago.
It staggers me how many people will argue from simplistic economic dogma, taught as isolated thought experiments or from very limited and controlled (and selective) observation... and many decades into a significantly changed world. Like smugly saying we'll never get into space because baking-soda and vinegar rockets can't do the job.

Quote:
My point being that we need the full range of employment opportunities because not everyone has what it takes to be an engineer or a doctor.
My point being that there are no jobs for a increasing percentage of the population, no matter how willing or educated or desperate they might be. We are just now peeking over the edge of a vast drop in real employment. "Jobs for everyone" is the dogma of the 1930s, 1950s and perhaps 1970s; it's an absurdist mantra in 2018.

Even the mainstream media is starting to give serious coverage to the idea of permanent unemployment, a decreasing labor pool and radical changes like universal income. But you have to come out of the dusty Econ 101 classroom to find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 02:25 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,829 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Population reduction reduces out-put.
Only when the population being reduced is actually productive.
If (when) the lesser and non-productive are reduced... overall output is unchanged.


But the NET costs to society by no longer having that net consumer of public wealth cohort?
This is the larger goal beyond the raw numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
But solutions based on (ultimate success with) population reduction
are so long-term as to be off the table of economic consideration.
As edited... I'll agree to a point but it absolutely warrants far more than mere 'consideration'
Regardless of how difficult it could be.


So... we still have to START somewhere with something.
And that 'something' will need to be a plurality of efforts... not any one thing.
As regards population changes... we start with stasis. Not digging the hole ever deeper.

Quote:
Yes, the discussion needs to be held. Yes, the goal needs to get some traction.
Certainly more than just what a couple of cranks on the internet say about them.

Last edited by MrRational; 09-19-2018 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,007,246 times
Reputation: 3776
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
As edited... I'll agree to a point but it absolutely warrants far more than mere 'consideration'
Bad form to edit quotes. Just sayin'.

Quote:
So... we still have to START somewhere with something.
No argument at all. But we have one mega-problem representing two or three component problems. One can be implemented and have a significant effect within a decade. The other will take ten times as much effort (an effort already almost beyond comprehension) and take fifty years to start showing results. I suggest that suggests an order of priority. One does not begin a 100-meter dash at a trot, nor a marathon at a blind sprint. Both (and others) need to be started. No argument. But at appropriate paces and with appropriate... foundation-building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2018, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,961 posts, read 1,007,246 times
Reputation: 3776
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Certainly more than just what a couple of cranks on the internet say about them.
I have had the pleasure of being howled out of discussions, to being surrounded by rolling eyes, to being tolerated, to being taken seriously... about the time the issues and discussions show up on mainstream media.

I crank away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2018, 09:54 AM
 
195 posts, read 36,835 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
Cost inflation ≠ jobs
That is the formula the greedy use to convince stupid humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2018, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,039 posts, read 11,450,778 times
Reputation: 17182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
With all of the manufacturing that has gone to China, factories here have closed up. With the tariffs, prices will have to go up for the consumers, but if they want those goods they will have to pay it. The alternative that would create jobs would be for more manufacturing to return to the U.S., and that doesn't happen overnight. In fact, with the cost of real estate and labor here, plus the lack of skilled people to do the work, it still won't pencil out to a lower cost than importing with the tariffs.
It's the logic of industry. Many of the manufacturing firms that have left the USA were profitable, they could just be more profitable across the border in Mexico. An extra 1% on the bottom line is a no-brainer to a bean counter, and the process of dismantling the company in the US can lead to immediate profits.

Here is an example of what happened to Simmons Mattress. They are still sold, manufactured in Mexico. A similar thing happened to Motorola.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/b...www.google.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2018, 11:45 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,829 posts, read 57,830,396 times
Reputation: 29215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Many of the manufacturing firms that have left the USA were profitable...
And many weren't.

If you're to have that conversation it's important to identify WHEN the move happened
and what OTHER factors aside from the ACC101 P&L statement aspects were involved.


All those business operation particulars aside though...
the common denominator of failure, economic and social, in the wake of those decisions to move
was the LACK of foresight regarding replacement workers. Not only was nothing done to deliberately
and consciously limit the growth of that population over the coming decades... nearly every public
policy that would impact those populations seemed to actually encourage producing ever more.
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

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