BF2S Forums Population

Ender2309 wrote:

dude....you're totally wrong. population increases as economic growth happens. it causes a fall in mortality which results in a growth of population.

When an economy develops and people become more affluent there tends to be a dirth of people to fill the menial but necessary 'bottom-of-the-barrel' jobs. Who should fill them? Where will these people come from?

kylef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

A country can only achieve economic growth when it is already producing to its maximum potential, and then finds ... say ... a new mineral deposit. Judging from that statement you made it sounds like the country was not producing to its maximum level originally, and so there was no economic growth - just an increase in already-there production.

First, your assertion of what it takes for a country to achieve economic growth is simply wrong. If they are already at their maximum potential, then they aren't growing.

Second, your understanding of my comment is not at all reflective of what I said.

Ender2309 wrote:

]
the bottom of the barrel jobs get relegated to the poor and the stupid, lazy, or mentally ill. thats the problem with the democratic mindset. too much charity throws off the natural order of society: some poor and some rich must coexist with many middles.

In a developed economy there are less of these types of people that you mention and more rich people who use the services these kinds of people provide. How does one fill the jobs?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 17:29:43)

the world is fast becoming overpopulated, rewarding more children would have serious consequences in coming decades, our population cannot endlessly increase

Ender2309 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

]
the bottom of the barrel jobs get relegated to the poor and the stupid, lazy, or mentally ill. thats the problem with the democratic mindset. too much charity throws off the natural order of society: some poor and some rich must coexist with many middles.

In a developed economy there are less of these types of people that you mention and more rich people who use the services these kinds of people provide. How does one fill the jobs?

it all sorts itself out eventually. some kid with a business degree can't get a job so he works at mcdonalds. people may not want to do the work, but when they have no choice, they will.

edit: also, youth labor fills most of those jobs nicely. and when you consider that robotics is making most manufacturing jobs obsolete, those workers move into other fields.

If that really was the case then your economy, with only about 6% unemployment, would not be employing tens of millions of illegals in many of these menial jobs. Personally I think immigrants today fill the jobs that people in a particular country are, for the most part, unwilling to lower themselves into doing anymore.

CameronPoe wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

In a developed economy there are less of these types of people that you mention and more rich people who use the services these kinds of people provide. How does one fill the jobs?

it all sorts itself out eventually. some kid with a business degree can't get a job so he works at mcdonalds. people may not want to do the work, but when they have no choice, they will.

edit: also, youth labor fills most of those jobs nicely. and when you consider that robotics is making most manufacturing jobs obsolete, those workers move into other fields.

If that really was the case then your economy, with only about 6% unemployment, would not be employing tens of millions of illegals in many of these menial jobs. Personally I think immigrants today fill the jobs that people in a particular country are, for the most part, unwilling to lower themselves into doing anymore.

you're right. once they realize they have no chance at survival outside of lowering themselves, however, they will. the reason the unemployment rate is so high is because people expect to get good office jobs and refuse to work outside that environment.

I suppose the government will benefit more from immigration because they won't have a bunch of angry natives banging on the door asking for a higher minimum wage. Developed countries enjoy different kind of work in the tertiary sector so I would imagine a huge labor force would be required and we would still, in any case, have the immigrants to do the dirty work for us (as mean as it might sound.).

Government could try and increase incentives for families to have more children but that would, like Jord said, be very Nazi and imo a little intruding. It may also be negative in the sense that people might try and cheat the system having many children and treating them more as a business opportunity rather than how a small child should be treated.

FEOS wrote:

kylef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not all economic growth relies on a growing population. Economic growth can occur with increased production and export without a markedly increased population. A growing economy does better support a growing population, but the latter is not a requirement for the former.

A country can only achieve economic growth when it is already producing to its maximum potential, and then finds ... say ... a new mineral deposit. Judging from that statement you made it sounds like the country was not producing to its maximum level originally, and so there was no economic growth - just an increase in already-there production.

First, your assertion of what it takes for a country to achieve economic growth is simply wrong. If they are already at their maximum potential, then they aren't growing.

Second, your understanding of my comment is not at all reflective of what I said.

Economic Growth can only occur when a country is producing at its maximum potential, and then somehow increases that (however if in the case of a quality increase then it is arguable that the country wasn't operating at its maximum potential originally) Sorry, I must have misunderstood your original post. I read in that the country wasn't producing at its maximum potential originally.

Ender2309 wrote:

so going from 50% of its max potential to 100% isn't economic growth?

Correct. In true terms, economic growth can only occur when a country was originally operating at its maximum potential.

FEOS wrote:

kylef wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

so going from 50% of its max potential to 100% isn't economic growth?

Correct. In true terms, economic growth can only occur when a country was originally operating at its maximum potential.

There is clearly some difference of opinion regarding that claim.

wiki wrote:

Economic growth is the increase in value of the goods and services produced by an economy. It is conventionally measured as the percent rate of increase in real gross domestic product, or real GDP. Growth is usually calculated in real terms, i.e. inflation-adjusted terms, in order to net out the effect of inflation on the price of the goods and services produced. In economics, "economic growth" or "economic growth theory" typically refers to growth of potential output, i.e., production at "full employment," which is caused by growth in aggregate demand or observed output.

What I learnt for AS Economics was that the true definition of economic growth is what I stated above.



A = what we are talking about at the minute. The country was not operating at its maximum potential immediately.
B = the country is now operating at its maximum potential.
C = the country is operating above its maximum potential, due to economic growth

^{(A>B refers to Point A to Point B, etc)}

A>B - not economic growth in its true terms. Country was not operating to its maximum potential.
B>C - economic growth. Country moved from its maximum potential to an increased maximum potential.

That's how I learnt it from my economics professor. (MBA & Bachelor of Science {Econ})

Edit:
I can understand how it seems like economic growth because taking theory out of it it is. But with theory around it, it can't be classified as true growth.

Last edited by kylef (2008-09-14 07:19:10)

Ender2309 wrote:

but if it grows from its max potential didn't the maximum potential just increase, therefore making it NOT growth?

That's the hole in the theory: there can never really be a "true" maximum potential. The country can only assume what its maximum potential is and then work from that. This is the one thing economics has really taught me: it's all a theory.

Ender2309 wrote:

kylef wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

but if it grows from its max potential didn't the maximum potential just increase, therefore making it NOT growth?

That's the hole in the theory: there can never really be a "true" maximum potential. The country can only assume what its maximum potential is and then work from that. This is the one thing economics has really taught me: it's all a theory.

so basically what you said before may be widely accepted in the economic circle but in reality is just a load of talk with no application in the real world?

What I stated was the current accepted definition and understanding of the true meaning of "economic growth".