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.
There is an agenda with the rapidly increasing population, they even say what they want to do with it in the UK, and here. With old weak or many having one child here they think they can impose that on us and we pay, so no we don't need to import those willing to have 10 -20 with many wives and us paying for. Just saying. And stop with the baby boomer insults they worked and had the right to have the amount of kids they wanted. No one funded them, as we are being asked to now.
Correct. No one funded them then. Now, however, the bill is coming due on the big two welfare programs for the baby boomers. We need to figure out how to pay for the Boomers welfare bennies pretty quickly.
Economists tell us a rapidly growing population helps our economy. So when we have a billion people, everyone in America will be rich?
Take a stockbroker and a televangelist and blend them together with that big smoking machine in "The Fly" movie, and what do you get? An economist.
Have you ever asked yourself how top economists get to be celebrities while making a living? What's their career ladder? Find this out, and you'll know everything you need to know.
A growing population is beneficial to a growing economy. Currently I believe our birth rate is below the replacement rate which means we would have to rely on immigration to grow our population
That hasn't been true for decades, ever since Norbert Weiner invented cybernetics in 1948. Excess population is currently a drag on economic growth. Nonproductive people consume massive quantities of resources that could be diverted to productive ends. You can automate people out of jobs, but you still have to feed them, clothe them and house them.
IIRC, when you and I were in school in the 1960s, I think the world population in 2000 was projected to be at least 50% higher than it is today because demographers went by data from the Baby Boom years and couldn't anticipate how urbanization, education, and opportunities for women would change world wide population growth. Europe, Japan, and China are all either at negative population growth or just barely above it. Nobody anticipated that at all. The only reason that the US, Canada, and Australia aren't in negative territory is immigration.
It's likely that as the world continues to urbanize, birth rates will continue to drop. Children are not an economic asset to urban families, only to rural families dependent upon subsistence agriculture.
Exactly. Excess population is not an asset to any modern society. You have to get the population growing slower than the economy or everyone becomes slowly worse off.
Demographers in the 1960s built projections the same way they do now. They set boundary conditions and project within those conditions. In the early '60s, nobody had heard of Norman Borlaug, and it was generally assumed that famine would limit population growth. In the late '60s the spectre of famine had retreated, but nobody realized that we would be shipping boatloads of birth control pills to every country in the world.
Somebody needs to shovel the religious fanatics out of the way and put some serious resources into worldwide birth control, or excess population will bring us all down.
That hasn't been true for decades, ever since Norbert Weiner invented cybernetics in 1948. Excess population is currently a drag on economic growth. Nonproductive people consume massive quantities of resources that could be diverted to productive ends. You can automate people out of jobs, but you still have to feed them, clothe them and house them.
It's basic common sense. A declining population consumes less and a growing population consumes more. You simply are wrong a growing population is better than a shrinking one economically speaking
Nonproductive people consume massive quantities of resources that could be diverted to productive ends. You can automate people out of jobs, but you still have to feed them, clothe them and house them.
Why do you assume there is a greater percentage of people are nonproductive in a growing versus declining or static population?
This. It's not so much the raw numbers as the ratios of adults in the workforce to adults drawing a pension/retirement benefit of some sort. 4 working adults to one person drawing social security is a sustainable ratio; 2 workers for every retire, which is where many countries are headed, is not. So you can either try to grow the under 50 population of a country or declare a new retirement age of 75+ in order to get the ratios back to sustainability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelWingDesigns
There is an agenda with the rapidly increasing population, they even say what they want to do with it in the UK, and here. With old weak or many having one child here they think they can impose that on us and we pay, so no we don't need to import those willing to have 10 -20 with many wives and us paying for. Just saying. And stop with the baby boomer insults they worked and had the right to have the amount of kids they wanted. No one funded them, as we are being asked to now.
Except for the part where the baby boomers got to go to public universities when taxpayers in their state of residence paid 95% of the cost of instruction. The California-based boomers I know love to talk about how they got their degrees for $500 in fees a year. Then they graduated, decided their taxes were too high, and we've got the current system where the boomers' kids are seeing their own kids go off to college in a system where only about 30% of the cost of instruction in most states comes out of general fund pots, so those families are paying huge sums out of pocket for college compared to the boomers 'who got no funding' for college or whose presence required many school districts to build large numbers of schools to accomidate them, even if there were 30 kids in an elementary school classroom back then.
Does America really need a rapidly increasing population to prosper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
A growing population is beneficial to a growing economy. Currently I believe our birth rate is below the replacement rate which means we would have to rely on immigration to grow our population
^^^ Yes. In 20-25 years, we'll have 2 workers per every retiree, which means fewer people will be paying into Social Security. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree. It's all down to math.
Last edited by Tobiashen; 12-31-2015 at 10:15 PM..
Reason: wrong tense
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.
Does America really need a rapidly increasing population to prosper?
