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.
Yes a declining population is a problem. We need a certain amount of people to simply maintain status quo. Economic and societal upheaval will result without a stable base of replacement people.
We need a certain amount of people to simply maintain a status quo.
Economic and societal upheaval will result without a stable base of replacement people.
So far... so good.
Quote:
Yes a declining population is a problem.
dang! And you were so close. Want to try again?
(this time *you* put the conclusion after the assertions -- instead of before them.)
I read a little bit on demographics when I can find something. Its interesting that the natural assumption is that declines in population are always bad. I don't think governments like them because it means fewer taxpayers. I don't think business likes it because it means fewer customers. But I guess there are some advantages to a declining population. Less need to use up natural resources. No need to build a lot more schools, homes, roads etc. I know Japan is going through this, and certain intellectuals are upset about it, but I'm not sure the common folks are. The more I think about it though, I don't see a problem with a shrinking population. Anyone want to set me straight.
The problem with your question is that it does not specify for whom it would be good or bad.
As with any equation there are winners and losers to population growth and decline.
For governments and big business it is a loss. For working people it provides opportunities.
In a shrinking population you reach a point where there is an abundance of older people needing services, and a smaller population to provide them. This drives up wages and simultaneously drives deflation in the costs of real estate and other commodities.
Some people win and others loose.
One way to assure the functioning of the US Social Security system is to eliminate the cap on taxable income and apply the tax to all income from all sources. A declining population does not automatically mean a declining economy. In the Great Woods of the Northeast the population decline has followed the loss of jobs as the paper industry moved away to somewhere (the rain forest?) else. Some of these towns have been nearly destroyed. In the Great Plains the intense mechanization of farming has allowed the economy to remain or increase prosperity as the lowered working population has effectively been nullified by the increasingly efficient farm machines.
We are actually harming our economy by importing low wage workers because they really do cost more then they produce. We should be importing highly skilled high paid very productive workers in very limited numbers to make up for the college graduates we are not producing. Automated farming and manufacturing do not need mobs of unskilled workers.
My point is the modern economy has become unhooked from the population level. Productivity is linked to investment and skill instead of raw numbers.
Greg, I'm kinda shocked, you seemed to have forgotten how you'll get tagged a 1 percentist by your fellow Dems if you don't go along with flooding the anemic U.S. economy with low and unskilled laborers.
No, what matters is how human capital is allocated and used. More people and greater population density are not things that are liked by many people. I specifically moved away from a higher population place to a lower population place to improve my quality of life. Having city amenities, suburb amenities, and rural amenities within close proximity is good.
Also, conservation of land is a conservative principle on the fiscal end of things. It costs far more to develop, extend city services to, maintain, and tax to leave the land undeveloped than to for it to be developed- particularly inefficient residential housing patterns instead of actually allocating land for more efficient land uses that more people demand currently.
we have a long way to go before we need to pack people into every space like cities. there is still tons of open space right here in America and around the world. problems with resources has more to do with the shortcomings of the people than the actual scarcity of resources. the cost of developing land vs not developing land is irrelevant. we develop land because we need/want to. if we have more people and need/want to develop more land then we can.
Are you in a secret CD contest for dumbest poster? Your posts are getting to be beyond ludicrous.
EDIT: Oops. I just looked at your profile. That explains a LOT!
between me and you; I don't think I am the one who is lacking intelligence. we have x billion people right now; what makes you so brilliant to have determined exactly when the earth has no more capacity for additional people? I don't know the capacity; but its obvious that we are nowhere near it.
we have a long way to go before we need to pack people into every space like cities.
there is still tons of open space right here in America and around the world.
you miss the point.
Quote:
problems with resources....
...really aren't the issue.
If the only reason to develop land is to create more bedrooms (and more dentist offices
and more Denny's Restaurants) and more of all the rest that clutters up the rest of the country
and especially so where people actually want to live... then what is gained from the exercise?
Not a damned thing.
We've had quite enough of that over the last 30 or 40 or even 60 years.
Absent that population growth and ideally by trimming the total some... we can consolidate.
And we can do it in a way that actually makes life nicer and costs us all less as well.
Yes a declining population is a problem. We need a certain amount of people to simply maintain status quo. Economic and societal upheaval will result without a stable base of replacement people.
Why do you think Japan has sunk so far? It could happen to China as well. I hear they are predicting labor shortages. I know, that is a situation the U.S. would love to have, but in the long run it drags down the country.
If the only reason to develop land is to create more bedrooms (and more dentist offices
and more Denny's Restaurants) and more of all the rest that clutters up the rest of the country
and especially so where people actually want to live... then what is gained from the exercise?
Not a damned thing.
We've had quite enough of that over the last 30 or 40 or even 60 years.
Absent that population growth and ideally by trimming the total some... we can consolidate.
And we can do it in a way that actually makes life nicer and costs us all less as well.
you may not feel anything was gained. someone may feel that nothing is gained from your existence and the things that you enjoy. but I feel that more people getting to enjoy life and make their own decisions on what is "gained" is better than you determining that after x amount of people living and eating at denny's, there is no more to gain by having more people.
we have a long way to go before we need to pack people into every space like cities. there is still tons of open space right here in America and around the world. problems with resources has more to do with the shortcomings of the people than the actual scarcity of resources. the cost of developing land vs not developing land is irrelevant. we develop land because we need/want to. if we have more people and need/want to develop more land then we can.
You miss the point as well. Most of the population in the world already lives in the places most habitable for human civilization with LIMITED water resources that are getting worse in many areas of the world right now. Low population densities are common where agriculture is not possible or very limited in desert areas, wooded areas, cold areas, etc. Yes, we can develop more land expensively for inefficient sprawl, but developers and wealthy should pay the full cost of such developments and not ask the taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles. Conserving land instead of developing it is a conservative principle, lost on most people who identify as a Republican voter these days. I give a good amount of money to local conservation groups to purchase land so that it will never be developed or subdivided, or private landowners can place a conservation easement on land they already own. This means all rural activities can continue as the land remains a working farm or a wooded homestead with a conservatively managed woodlot. This is a solid way forward, particularly in many areas that are rural yet have growth pressures from developers.
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.
