Is population growth essential for a functioning economy?
I am just a layman, but I had a discussion with my friend about the subject. He claimed that population growth is just unnecessary while I claimed population growth is beneficial, which is partly why immigration to Europe is so big.
What does /his/ have to say?
What is the caption of the original OP pic again?
Or pls post.
No, it's completely unecessary. In fact, population decline makes for higher wages and higher standards of living.
My concerns with population growth driven by immigration is where does it stop?
The excuse used to justify it is that population growth for the native population in most Western countries has fallen below the replacement rate since the '60s/'70s. Therefore need young immigrants to work and directly/indirectly support aging populations
But assuming that those young immigrants (or their offspring) assimilate towards Western reproductive norms, and themselves decide they'd much rather have 1-2 kids or no kids at all, what happens then?
Who will we then import to replace aging first/second generation immigrants?
>>427022
This. There is a finite amount of wealth that is available and can be created. The less people the more wealth to the living.
>>426831
Not necessarily. I think the population decline in modern countries can be beneficial. Everything will be automatized and done by robots, which means we won't need more people doing labor in the future.
>>427031
But why are we taking in so many immigrants to begin with? Surely there must be some other reason other than just "it's morally right, they are fleeing war!". These people are in power, it must be due to some sort economical benefit they have figured out right?
/pol/ can ignore this post.
>>427019
Weak must fear the strong.
Just Google that with Sam Hyde, too lazy myself.
>>427051
Nah, this is like naive evolutionary psychology. That a thing exists doesn't always imply one hard cause, much less one that can be stated with certainty.
>>427051
>economic benefit
>*perceived economic benefit
FTFY
>>427051
>But why are we taking in so many immigrants to begin with?
The consensus is more immigrants = more economic growth (because more consumers, more workers, and more innovation). Also the previously mentioned "They'll pay for our retirement!" argument.
This consensus is reinforced by the Left's aversion to anything that might even slightly sound like "racism" or "xenophobia". You can't even advocate reducing immigration on environmental grounds without someone accusing you of "just wanting to fuck over brown people"
>>426831
No. In fact low birth rates are often beneficial for economies, it keeps gap per capita high and does not strain resources. As for production an increase in labor supply can be good but their are diminishing returns. Obviously some form of stable population is needed but low to negative growth rates can be beneficial or not harmful in the short term. Immigration occurs because of higher wage rates brought on by lower populations
>>427074
Immigration can create economic growth and fulfill lack of labor supply but there is a limit to these benefits that decreases with each additional laborer
>>427087
Isn't /biz/ one of those /an/ and /po/-tier slow boards
I think a good question is why is it that immigration is the go to strategy when adressing declining birth rates and not policies that promote natalism among the native population.
>>427071
>the last authentic religious majority on earth fucks up their region for centuries
>lately starts civil war and imperial conquest
>these fuckups cause endless migrants/refugees to flee to secular countries
>even some of the most diehard of these religious migrants will see how superior the secular countries they flee to are in utilitarian, aesthetic, and arguably even moral terms (despite the hedonism)
>when many of them return or send messages home the people there will become even more secular
>these last religious people have basically sounded their own death-knell
Should we have expected anything more rational from these life-deniers?
>>427022
I don't know about that, I thought there was a strong correlation between population and economic growth/decline in the last decade.
>>427031
If they adopted native reproductive norms and had been there long enough to do so, wouldn't they basically become part of the native population in the equation, and be supported by new immigrants. Your critique only makes sense if you are implying eventually we will run out of immigrants to come here, which you don't seem to have suggested could happen, and I don't think it could happen in any foreseeable time span that makes sense to calculate. The country itself could have dissolved or lost its supremacy by then.
>>427036
Economics isn't simple. If population increase happened to produce greater wealth creation overall then your simplistic idea would be refuted. Easy example: 3 billionaires enter the country, more people but also a bigger pot to share round. And the argument seems to be that these immigrant workers allow businesses to create more wealth for the country.
>>427101
It's a quick fix solution.
Even assuming pro-natalist policies manage to increase the native birth-rate, you've still got ~18 years of investing in childcare, education etc before they can become productive citizens in their own right.
On the other hand immigrants (the desired ones anyway) will already be ready to join workforce, and most will have acquired skills/tertiary education in other countries
>>427111
Depends on what growth. Production would increase due to cheap labor and low wages but GDP per capita goes down. The growth rates of high population growth can mostly be attributed to catch up growth from technology spread and populations slowly lowering birth rates because social change is not instant. Birth rates are going down however in the high growth countries just slowly
>>427101
Well to be fair it takes 18 years to grow a child and even then the child might need additional education.
An immigrant takes like four or five years at most to get a job to, and if you use selective systems as in Canada you only get the best immigrants with great education.
No immigration is needed to boost economy.
Europe taking in millions and millions of migrants will not boost the economy, quite the opposite.
>>427119
Fair enough but it seems like the long term effects would outweigh the short term benefit of having to import most of your workforce for abroad. Also seems amoral that a question such as this is boiled down to an economic quick fix.
>>427101
Quicker and immigrants will still be cheaper laborers than those born domestic
>>427128
Governments don't control economies as much as we think, labor demand will lead to labor supply somehow and it will not wait for local benefit.
>>427137
All I'm saying is there are wider implications to this and no one seems to be looking at the bigger picture here.
>>426831
The problem here is the eternal concern with "economic growth".
Growth towards what? Does nobody see anything strange with this? Are we supposed to keep growing forever? Why?
>>427148
We want to grow towards greater efficiency and greater living standards. I suppose we would continue to go forever.
>>427148
Also the same people advocating for more immigration to help stimulate economic growth will be the same crying about how the planet can't sustain this amount of human population.
>>427148
But does it not correlate with scientific and cultural supremacy? super states: Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, California.
>>427163
Look up the concept "Last Man" or give us your thoughts on it.
>>427165
False equation. This is like when people equate a government's economy with a household's budget. It seems pretty intuitive that different rules could hold for each, until proven otherwise. Also seems to imply a preference for partisan shit/binary thinking.
>>427111
>I thought there was a strong correlation between population and economic growth/decline in the last decade.
Economic growth is driven by population growth, but has no positive effect on standard of living. What use is there in having a larger GDP if it is being split among a proportionately larger number of people?
All you get is economic bottlenecks around scarce resources with a largely inflexible supply, like urban real estate and precious metals.
>>426831
Population growth actually hurts economies since in most western countries the amount of jobs are decreasing due to automatization and movement of jobs to foreign countries, a shrinking population in first world countries allows for niche jobs to be filled and specialist jobs, and specifically higher education specialist jobs to become the majority which would theoritically speed up technological improvements. The problem is european socialist economic structure, they've tried to keep manufacturing jobs since the health and well being of the people is expensive and they need low education jobs to pay off past debt en masse that has been accumulated through consisent spending on things like elderly care which unlike education which is usually a nominal fee paid for only a portion of the population once a year/semester untill graduation has a price that rises with time and is a constant in a aging country. If the population doesn't keep expanding there will be a higher ratio between tax payers And people on government aid untill it is unsustainable, and the smaller population will lead to an increase in niche jobs which will increase the need for education funding which in turn won't have enough tax payers to support itself. If you really think about it, because socialism itleast in europe needs a constantly growing population it is essentially a pyramid scheme. I'm not saying socialism can't work but the way it pushes past debt onto the future in a way that is unsustainable.
What about the impact on the country they emigrate from. "Brain drain" and whatnot.
>>426831
not in a time of globalization and emergent automatization of production, and, specifically for the western world, the terciarization of the economy.
>>427176
I am well aware of the concept and have read all of Nietzsche's work. There may be some truth in his claim that for a man to be great he must suffer, but great men can come from anywhere really. Besides, there's no getting rid of the modern comfy lifestyle. It would take a calamity to remove it.
>>427148
this is the big problem with capitalism IMO
>>427146
Yeah you're certainly right about that
>>427179
>Economic growth is driven by population growth, but has no positive effect on standard of living
But I was referencing the mainstream record of the previous decade's economics. Did the countries with the growing population and economic growth not have increasing living standards also, while those with the decline had decreasing standards? e.g. China/India vs Europe to take big examples.
>What use is there in having a larger GDP if it is being split among a proportionately larger number of people?
Absolutely depends on the proportions. Obviously 4 coconuts among 8 people is worse than 3 coconuts among 4. But 16 coconuts among 8 people is better than 4 coconuts among 4 people.
>All you get is economic bottlenecks around scarce resources with a largely inflexible supply, like urban real estate and precious metals.
But what if the growth created more urban development and metal harvesting?
>>427197
Except it isn't.
>>427197
>>427148
You say it's a problem but you've not replied to the suggestion that it can be the basis upon which less hedonistic or materialist things can be built. The less time you spend worrying on the mundane things required to live your life, the more time you have on higher things. Economic supremacy seems to produce supremacy in science and culture?
>>427148
Growth to make up for the inadequacies of the system. The poor can have their lives slightly improved or sustained despite uneven wealth while the profit motive is satisfied. Capitalism in theory efficient markets and creating equilibrium but the desire for growth takes over in practice
>>426831
Technology and machinery can make up for sheer number of hands, at least to an extent
>>427132
Using brain drain as an example an Italian moving to the US with a Phd in engineering physics it's a loss for Italy since the investment in him is lost and America gets a free skilled man. This is much worse for countries who train much needed doctors who then proceed to leave with their needed expertise. Uganda only has 1 urologist because the 20 others who graduated in that single urologists class emmigrated.
>>426831
>Is population growth essential for a functioning economy?
I'd rather say a stable level of peoples capable of taking up positions that (older) peoples retire from or are no longer capable of doing.
Take Japan for instance. It has a major problem due to its weak birth rate and growing population of old people. Old people lose their capacity to contribute and become more and more burdensome and a liability with respect to healthcare, social pensions etc and being 'non-working' members effectively contribute nothing to the growth or sustenance of the economy.
It's not so much population growth but rather having a capable and ready work force to meet the demands of the economy.
>>427111
>the last authentic religious majority on earth fucks up their region for centuries
Western foreign policy in that time span and recently from colonialism through the cold war, right up to toppling strong-man dictators did far more for that (instability).
Assuming strong property rights and a functional monetary system, there is a very strong relationship between belief in future population growth and increases in GDP per capita. If you believe there are going to be more customers in the future you have a greater incentive to invest in capital goods, and more capital increases labor productivity and thus GDP per capita. This is distinct from the additional benefits of having a younger population and of having a high population that will, all else being equal, produce more innovators. The only costs of high population growth is lower amounts of land (in the economic sense) per capita which can be ameliorated with the technology and capital that economic growth creates.
>>427334
Its also tax burden. You can't have an aging population because then you aren't gonna make old out of work people take the burden.
I fucking love that picture holy shit.
>>426831
>>427022
Depends on the context.
There is a point where land can only provide so much. Japans low birth rate could actually benefit them in the long run. Currently land prices are simply too high. If prices were lowered, they could spend money on other things, effectively increasing their net utility.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>428974
Land prices outside of big cities aren't that high, and even if they were, Japan has far more undeveloped land than most people think, in addition to its massive and inefficient farm sector that hogs so much of its available land.
>>428974
Their low-birth rate on its own perhaps isn't a bad thing, but coupled with the rising age of their society how is it not a bad thing?
If they want to have any form of welfare for the elderly who is going to pay for it with an ever decreasing pool of young people, unless they raise the retirement age?
>>428991
Robots
>>429004
Sex robots won't increase the birthrate.
>>429004
Humans aren't horses. There is a ton of evidence that robots actually increase jobs, because they help with division of labor.
>>429022
> There is a ton of evidence
Evidence pls.
>>429040
Extensively sourced for you
http://www2.itif.org/2013-are-robots-taking-jobs.pdf
>>426831
baby boomers must continue to be rich.
>>429022
I was being ironic but fucking sure future saviour of the human race.
When your economy is based on debt, yes it is. Population growth means economical growth, which means international finance more likely to accept giving a loan. Even financial rating take population growth in account, because it means more people to produce wealth that can be seized by banks and pay taxes to repay interests or fund national assets that will be seized by banks once the country start defaulting. See how most national companies in Europe have been privatized in the last 50 years of debt based economy.
>>427051
People in power don't necessarily know what they're doing, Merkel recently called multiculturalism a mistake after taking in around 1,000,000 Migrants this year because it turns out these people don't immediately assimilate into society.
>>427101
Japan has a fuck load of incentives to have children. Look how that's turned out.
