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.
According to the census though..we're not in a population boom.
SS predictions were off the mark by almost 8 million (they overestimated for 2010 and now have to adjust downward).
We have a slowing growth..not a boom.
Growth of working age population has always yielded economic growth over longer term views. Its just a simple function of production meeting higher demand for consumption. Opportunities go hand in hand with growth.
Maybe when we produced most of what we consumed. China, India, Vietnam and other low wage countries may benefit from U.S. population growth and increased consumption, , but I don't see how population growth is necessarily linked to more opportunities here.
Maybe I'm short sighted, but I honestly have no idea what the average Joe will do in 2050 for a living.
According to the census though..we're not in a population boom.
SS predictions were off the mark by almost 8 million (they overestimated for 2010 and now have to adjust downward).
We have a slowing growth..not a boom.
The undocumented immigrants will more than make up for that shortfall. And let's not forget that the census is not exact. + or - 8 million is probably within the margin of error of documented Americans.
The population explosion is very much alive despite what the bright side says. I mean 20+ million documented residents here since 2000 without counting those illegally? I'd say we're on the road to catastrophe given all things constant in and no further growth.
For example oil is headed back to the $100+ a barrel range. Energy fuels growth. Humanity has built its existence and explosive population expansion on it. Most of the human population expansion has happened in the last 200 years and most of it since 1950 since the introduction of fossil fuels. It hasn't figured out how to do it without fossil fuels. Pretty scary times I think. More so than the scaremongers of the 70's parlayed. Orr maybe what the predicted.
Of course the bright sides say 'solar and wind'. We don't really have the ability to construct devices that can harness energy from those resources in the quantity we need. Nuclear. Forget it. Current thinkers believe uranium ore is starting to be more scare all the time.
More importantly, how do we produce enough food for all these new people without fossil fuels? That's how we do it today and for the past 100 years.
There is likely to be sideways economic development in the near future, which is already visible in China and India and South America, with more and more wealth watering more people rather than richer people. This will be gravely to the detriment of America, where our own middle class will be seen as the unsustainable anomaly that it is. But globally, this will occur, probably by the natural dynamics of economics, but maybe by outright warfare.
Those of us who knew other times will find it very uncomfortable, but the primary occupants of the future will be the young who never knew nor expected anything different. We never learned anything from history---our children won't need to, either.
As the middle class sinks further and further into the mire here in America while nations like Brazil and Chile boom and start treating their lower and middle classes more benevolently, would it behoove young people here, especially Latins, to start seriously considering migrating to South America or should they just stay here out of patriotic duty and go down with the ship?
This is true. Growth by itself usually just causes more problems. We need more opportunities, not more warm bodies.
I agree with what Willy said in regard to the relationship between population growth and economic growth. To a certain extent, an increase in warm bodies will actually help economic growth. I don't have any kids myself, but I think the whole "world is overpopulated" mantra is a big scam.
Ideally, of course, we would really push for (and get) a combination of innovation and population growth. Another Baby Boom like we had after WW2, plus an innovation boom would bail us out...but I don't think the willingness to move out of our comfort zones is there to make either one of those scenarios happen, let alone a combination of both.
I agree with what Willy said in regard to the relationship between population growth and economic growth. To a certain extent, an increase in warm bodies will actually help economic growth. I don't have any kids myself, but I think the whole "world is overpopulated" mantra is a big scam.
Ideally, of course, we would really push for (and get) a combination of innovation and population growth. Another Baby Boom like we had after WW2, plus an innovation boom would bail us out...but I don't think the willingness to move out of our comfort zones is there to make either one of those scenarios happen, let alone a combination of both.
That's crap. If warm bodies equal economic growth, then Bangla Desh ought to be the most prosperous country on the planet. Adequate natural resources equals prosperity, not population growth. Up until recently, the US was blessed with adequate natural resources to fuel its economic growth. No more. The catastrophe of overpopulation is coming to the US, probably within this or the next generation, and I, quite frankly, doubt that our social, economic, and political institutions are going to survive it very well. And, if they don't, then we won't, either.
The bellwether moment will likely come, first to the Third and developing World, and then to us, when the price and availability of fossil fuels to fertilize (most of the world's fertilizer is now synthesized from the atmosphere in a process that consumes copious quantities of natural gas), plant, cultivate, harvest, preserve, and transport food becomes unsustainable. When that happens, at least half of the world population will likely starve. For about a century, we have literally been eating fossil fuels in order to feed the teeming human hordes on this planet. If any moron thinks that is sustainable over the long-term, they need to go get their head examined. Oh, and sorry, "innovation" can't override certain rules of physics and chemistry.
Adequate natural resources equals prosperity, not population growth.
Yup, all those natural resources is what has made Sudan such a wealthy, powerful country for so long. Meanwhile people starve by the millions in Japan and live in tarp cities.
Quote:
... When that happens, at least half of the world population will likely starve. For about a century, we have literally been eating fossil fuels in order to feed the teeming human hordes on this planet. If any moron thinks that ...
Then again you predicted $500/barrel oil and fuel shortages in the U.S. by 2009, so your expertise regarding the constant predictions of doom related to resource management is pretty questionable.
What a bunch of crap I see in this thread. Population growth equals economic growth, very simple. If you want to interject your opinion of resources or whatever, fine, that's your color, but it still doesn't change the fact that more people and flat or increasing productivity = growth.
If you want to argue differently, please tell us all why productivity will decline because that is essentially what you are arguing. Running out of resources does not kill productivity, in fact it might increase it after a short adjustment period. If high costs of oil lead to using other energy sources, that very well could yield productivity gains in the long run.
As for using silly comparisons like Sudan or Bangladesh, realize these are extremely high growth nations starting out from way behind. Growth at high rates from destitute poverty levels won't make a country industrialized in our lifetimes. If a country starts with $2,000 per capita GDP and grows 10% a year, how long will it take to catch a country doing say 3% growth and $35,000 per capita GDP? A long long time. And few countries will ever come close to 10% sustained growth for even 5 years, let alone a couple of decades.
The claim that natural resources = prosperity is discounted by countless examples across the globe.
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.
