I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
You know what gives industrialized countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now. And low wealth inequality, which is a definite unrelated problem in the US.
The USA has a low birthrate. And immigration has completely made up for it because they skew young.
From a purely economic quality of life perspective, setting all morals aside, the US should pull in as many immigrants as it can. We’re basically screwed now.
Meanwhile, the fallacy of immigration hurting wages is basically the South Park episode “Goobacks”
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now.
That argument is a fallacy and can just as easily be turned around, like:
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees kids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
The stock market is one representation of the productivity of a nation. The individual distribution of that productivity is negotiated via labour negotiation.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
Where did you “learn” economics…? Production works on a scale, meaning that 100 million people working with the same efficiency as 200m people will never be able to be as productive.
An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees kids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.
Lol, only one of those scenarios has any evidence to support it. The reason people had a lot of kids back then is because they required labour to work the land. The kids were the working population you dolt.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
You should watch the video. I used to be an overpopulation doomer, and it completely changed my perspective, especially when I dug into papers backing it up.
It’s worth mentioning that the videos perspective and conclusions are made within the lens of a capitalistic economy. Other economic models differ in their needs for economic stability. It’s also worth noting that capitalism has its own internal contradictions that have no real solution.
If we extend the logical basis of the video we end up with a scenario where the economy requires infinite growth which requires an infinitely expanding population to sustain. This is just not possible within a closed system with finite resources.
In conclusion we have yet to reach a point of overpopulation, however we aren’t very far from it given the compound growth required to sustain the most common economic system we utilize. Humans have used more of our natural resources in the last generation than all generations of the past put together. We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
Of course. 100% agree with this, even if better technology helps. It will have to be pretty soon.
But in the very short term? This is going to be a disaster, and the human population is shooting itself in the foot by not accepting immigration from extreme birth rate countries (where overpopulation is indeed an issue).
I dunno what you are getting at, because massive immigration has been an economic miracle for the USA. It’s ballooned the population, drained brains from other countries, and bolstered entire industries.
You know what gives industrialized countries a good quality of life? A young population with a high birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of retirees, as Korea and Japan are existentially facing now. And low wealth inequality, which is a definite unrelated problem in the US.
The USA has a low birthrate. And immigration has completely made up for it because they skew young.
Take that away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk
From a purely economic quality of life perspective, setting all morals aside, the US should pull in as many immigrants as it can. We’re basically screwed now.
Meanwhile, the fallacy of immigration hurting wages is basically the South Park episode “Goobacks”
“bolstered entire industries”, i.e. has increased the value of companies at the stock market. people’s wellbeing depends on their individual economic situation. the stock market is the economic situation of the rich.
If 200 million people produce twice as many goods as a 100 million, that just means that just as many goods are being produced per person, and that’s what matters.
That argument is a fallacy and can just as easily be turned around, like:
You know what gives countries a good quality of life? An old population with a low birth rate, so that the working population isn’t overburdened taking care of
retireeskids, as people in the medieval ages faced, where everybody had 6 kids.The stock market is one representation of the productivity of a nation. The individual distribution of that productivity is negotiated via labour negotiation.
Where did you “learn” economics…? Production works on a scale, meaning that 100 million people working with the same efficiency as 200m people will never be able to be as productive.
Lol, only one of those scenarios has any evidence to support it. The reason people had a lot of kids back then is because they required labour to work the land. The kids were the working population you dolt.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
You should watch the video. I used to be an overpopulation doomer, and it completely changed my perspective, especially when I dug into papers backing it up.
It’s worth mentioning that the videos perspective and conclusions are made within the lens of a capitalistic economy. Other economic models differ in their needs for economic stability. It’s also worth noting that capitalism has its own internal contradictions that have no real solution.
If we extend the logical basis of the video we end up with a scenario where the economy requires infinite growth which requires an infinitely expanding population to sustain. This is just not possible within a closed system with finite resources.
In conclusion we have yet to reach a point of overpopulation, however we aren’t very far from it given the compound growth required to sustain the most common economic system we utilize. Humans have used more of our natural resources in the last generation than all generations of the past put together. We will eventually have to change our economic system and adapt one with a much much lower consumption rate, figure ways to limit our population growth, or more than likely both.
Of course. 100% agree with this, even if better technology helps. It will have to be pretty soon.
But in the very short term? This is going to be a disaster, and the human population is shooting itself in the foot by not accepting immigration from extreme birth rate countries (where overpopulation is indeed an issue).