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.
Population decline is economic decline. If Gen X has 50 people, and each of them buy a home and have a job, you have 50 houses and 50 jobs. If Gen X only has 30 people, 20 jobs get cut and there are 20 vacant homes. Guess what that does to the markets?
Find where I said we need more people. I said a stable population requires a birth rate of 2.1. If our birth rate is 2.1, our population averages out to stay the same over the long term. If it is less than 2.1, our population eventually declines. The effects won't be immediate, but it will happen.
We are not reproducing at replacement levels. Do you propose the government use the strong arm of force to mandate 2 children?
I disagree that population decline equates to economic decline. Why would a smaller population fitting a smaller economy mean "decline"? We can build fewer houses to accommodate a smaller population.
Again, we don't need to be reproducing at replacement levels. I don't understand your basis for that. More people equals more demands on everything and we don't have endless resources.
You seem to have an irrational fear of having a reduced population. Why is that?
We don't have infinite natural resources. As it is, a while back The Washington Post had an article stating that we are running out of potable water. Yet you keep pushing for even more people.
The only way to keep our population constant is to stop all immigration---legal and illegal and force people to reproduce at replacement levels. Good luck with the latter.
Perhaps it is a fear of having fewer foreigners enter our country both legally and illegally? I don't know but there must be a reason for it and none of the reasons stated for wanting to maintain the population numbers that we already have which are in excess of the jobs and resources we have to sustain them make any sense to me.
I disagree that population decline equates to economic decline. Why would a smaller population fitting a smaller economy mean "decline"? We can build fewer houses to accommodate a smaller population.
A smaller economy is economic decline. It could be healthier, but the gross output is smaller.
(Hint: China & the U.S. vs. Denmark and Finland)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
Again, we don't need to be reproducing at replacement levels. I don't understand your basis for that. More people equals more demands on everything and we don't have endless resources.
You don't want to understand my basis for it because you are rejecting math. If a population doesn't reach replacement average, it will decline. There is no debating it. It takes 2.07 children to replace a dead female. Males cannot produce children asexually. This cold-hard facts.
I'm glad you said, more people equals more demand. That is the basis behind demand-pull inflation. Demand = inflation. All growth is inflation. Your home appreciation is because of inflation. Your asset appreciation is inflation.
So...India has over 1 billion people, how is their economy doing? In your eyes, are they a first world paradise?
No, rather they are a third world hole with not enough potable water.
When our country had a smaller population, we were doing rather well. You must not be old enough to remember those times.
You are also deliberately ignoring the facts. Even with replacement population, we will still run out of potable water. And how do you propose to keep the population constant? Are you saying that everybody should be forced to reproduce at replacement levels? Good luck with that.
Intelligent people realize that it makes no sense to bring children into this world that they can't properly feed, clothe, and shelter.
We are not reproducing at replacement levels. Do you propose the government use the strong arm of force to mandate 2 children?
-----
Wow! Talk about deflecting!
I'm all about reducing population. You seem to think that we have unlimited natural resorces. We don't. Got it?
Stop fearing population reduction. Why are you so obsessed and fearful about this? The world, as a whole, will be a better place if there were fewer people.
You keep saying that people in the US are reproducing below replacement levels. Functionally illiterate illegal aliens breed like rabbits---or haven't you noticed?
A smaller economy is economic decline. It could be healthier, but the gross output is smaller.
(Hint: China & the U.S. vs. Denmark and Finland)
You don't want to understand my basis for it because you are rejecting math. If a population doesn't reach replacement average, it will decline. There is no debating it. It takes 2.07 children to replace a dead female. Males cannot produce children asexually. This cold-hard facts.
I'm glad you said, more people equals more demand. That is the basis behind demand-pull inflation. Demand = inflation. All growth is inflation. Your home appreciation is because of inflation. Your asset appreciation is inflation.
I'm not rejecting math. Your math is fuzzy. As I said, we don't need to breed at replacement levels to remain a successful country economically. Economy isn't everything anyway. If we don't have enough jobs and resources to sustain a given population that should be more of a concern. That's the demand I was speaking of and I clearly stated that. We're already pass that and it is getting worse via illegal immigration. You might try reading up on the "carrying capacity of a nation" and what that actually means. It's ok, I read your remarks about this same issue in the City Data P & OC forum and your agenda was quite clear.
A foreign national is not here at all, much less legally. They can get a work visa after passing the bar, but when they pass the bar they are "illegal" in the sense that they have no legal right to reside or work in the US.
In MOST countries like in Mexico, illegal aliens pulling stunts like that would be in jail then deported. I agree with Mexico 100 percent there. The US needs to treat their kind like any other lawbreaker, 3 hots and a cot. Then deportation with a long ban from returning to the US.
Is there something about that you don't understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
So...India has over 1 billion people, how is their economy doing? In your eyes, are they a first world paradise?
That's not what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
When our country had a smaller population, we were doing rather well. You must not be old enough to remember those times.
Our economic output was smaller when we had a smaller population. The dow was lower. Home prices were lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
You are also deliberately ignoring the facts. Even with replacement population, we will still run out of potable water. And how do you propose to keep the population constant? Are you saying that everybody should be forced to reproduce at replacement levels? Good luck with that.
Immigration. Why do you think we haven't "closed" our borders to immigration?
The United States is not running out of water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Intelligent people realize that it makes no sense to bring children into this world that they can't properly feed, clothe, and shelter.
Intelligent people realize that if families can only afford one child, the population will decline. One child does not replace two parents.
We are not reproducing at replacement levels. Do you propose the government use the strong arm of force to mandate 2 children?
-----
Wow! Talk about deflecting!
I'm all about reducing population. You seem to think that we have unlimited natural resorces. We don't. Got it?
Of course we do. We just haven't invested in them. We have about 5 billion years of solar and wind energy left. Water doesn't go away it just changes phase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Stop fearing population reduction. Why are you so obsessed and fearful about this? The world, as a whole, will be a better place if there were fewer people.
I've already said more than once: population decline is economic decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
You keep saying that people in the US are reproducing below replacement levels. Functionally illiterate illegal aliens breed like rabbits---or haven't you noticed?
Immigration is the only thing keeping us above replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I'm not rejecting math. Your math is fuzzy. As I said, we don't need to breed at replacement levels to remain a successful country economically. Economy isn't everything anyway. If we don't have enough jobs and resources to sustain a given population that should be more of a concern. That's the demand I was speaking of and I clearly stated that. We're already pass that and it is getting worse via illegal immigration. You might try reading up on the "carrying capacity of a nation" and what that actually means. It's ok, I read your remarks about this same issue in the City Data P & OC forum and your agenda was quite clear.
There is nothing fuzzy about first grade arithmetic.
If the birth rate is 1.5, every pair of families is producing 3 children. 4 parents > 3 children. Therefore, the population is declining.
I have no agenda. You just aren't accepting reality.
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.
