|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 04:22 AM EDT |
| Economic output is the product of the working-age population
and the per-capita
productivity. Productivity increases
with mechanisation (including in
knowledge industries via
computing). If economic output falls relative to
*total*
population, that is a reduction in quality of life - and
that would be
a problem.
So a gradually falling population is not a problem. A
rapidly
falling *working age* population could be, if
productivity doesn't improve fast
enough to keep up, and if
it is not matched by a corresponding fall in total
population (which could happen due to retiring Baby
Boomers).
It is
instructive to examine the two World Wars here. Both
caused a significant fall
in working-age population, during
the war due to young men being sent off to
fight, and
afterwards due to accumulated attrition. But post-war
recoveries
were strong because large improvements in
productivity were developed to feed
the war efforts, and
were subsequently applied to civilian industry. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Population growth is strongly inversely correlated to prosperity which I think
kills that idea. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
Growth in population is key to some industries like housing. You don't build so
many new homes when there is no increase in the number of families. Also an
increase in population increases the number of consumers and the size of these
markets. Given the importance of housing and consumers to developed economies in
general the theory has some legs.
But population is only one factor. Economy is too complex to be reduced to one
variable. Some third world economies with runaway population booms show that you
need more than population growth the get the economy prospering.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
For each person, population growth is only a threat when you
have a reduction of resources to live on, thus creating
stress (a change in serotonin levels) that ends up in
aggressive behavior (a response where strongest survive).
Stock markets need population growth for MORE stuff to be
sold, more profit, etc. Home builders, if population drops
are not needed. The home building "industry" is a
consequence to the existence of 3 anchors to local
economies.
Those 3 anchors, thru out history, need
labor (thus housing for labor), are agriculture,
manufacturing, and mining. Everything else, including
tourism depends on this (tourism needs those 3 to be active
somewhere else, allowing the workers income enough to take
vacations).
Agriculture does not often see a need for massive growth of
workers.
Mining also, unless new reserves of something are discovered
and new workers are needed in those areas to provide labor
to extract the material from the earth.
Manufacturing however, can have explosive growth anywhere in
the world, dependent on labor costs in comparison with
competing areas...
If population growth declines and fewer products are needed,
then surely fewer workers might be needed in agriculture,
mining, and manufacturing.
Of course, advancement in equipment in those 3 areas will
also reduce the need for labor as well (think robots).
I am betting that population numbers do not play as large a
roll as advancements in robotics and general production
machinery for all three areas (Agriculture, Manufacturing,
Mining).
It's all relative. People do need work to make a living.
But, how much... in the future, might be less, so we need to
make it cheaper for all to live. Including using tech from
places like Oak Ridge Lab, that has a zero energy home that
uses about 65 cents of energy per day ($240 per year),
meaning, that a home owner could maybe pay for a mortgage on
just energy savings (how that affects mining, and oil
companies, will have to be adjusted, meaning downward need
for production). Again, advancements in tech will result in
the need for less labor, and maybe fewer products in some
areas (food will always be needed, but some mined products,
and manufactured products, not so much). Society will
adjust, look around, do you see many blacksmiths tending to
horses and carriages these days... NO. Society adjusted?
Yes. And, people have shown that society can adjust to
changes in tech and populations... it's just the investors
that need growth that have a hard time financially adjusting
if they have bet on an area that will see growth... but,
there are also investors that bet against growth? So, even
that market has ability to adjust.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scav on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
Given finite resources, one day the rate of consumption of
those resources must fall to the rate at which they are
renewed. For some currently-important resources, such as
oil, the rate of renewal is for all practical purposes zero.
Some things are not finite, such as art and knowledge. And
of course the best things in life are free. Just not all the
things you need to live.
So ultimately we need a plan B, where resource consumption
(and therefore one measure of economic activity) drops to a
sustainable level and growth flattens out to around 0% at
that level. So far I haven't heard that anyone has such a
plan. But I try to stay optimistic :)
---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes,
redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
