Thread: Falsely Equating Population Growth With Prosperity

Falsely equating population with prosperity

William A. Collins • published December 6, 2008 12:15 am

Some newspapers here in the Northeast are in despair. Our population is stagnant, development has slowed, and we are in danger of losing still more Congress members to the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed states of the Intermountain West. Colorado, here we come.

Those bright-eyed and bushy-tailed states meanwhile, are busy touting their mountains, clear springs, bustling industry, new housing and more Congress members. No, they don’t want California’s or New England’s huddled masses, but they do invite anyone with skills, ambition, and a little capital. Though less publicized, it would also be helpful if, in Tom Lehrer’s classic admonition, they magically “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air.â€

The countries with the biggest population are the poverty stricken countries. The most prosperous countries have the least amount of children. Doesn't make sense.

Yes, if lots of people made a country great, everybody would be moving to India, China, and Bangladesh instead of here.

The editorialist neglects to mention the tendency of couples to wait to become parents until they can raise their offspring at the same standard they enjoyed as children. The more people that are competing for jobs at their skill level the less the each make and so the Americans wait longer until they become parents. Immigrants from Third World countries on the other hand reach the standard that they were raised at close to minimum wage. The Third World immigrants tend to have their children attend public schools and receive public health and if they were born here the children can receive welfare AFDC and WIC. With an over supply of labor if the Americans do form their household and do have children they are forced to be on public benefits as well. These costs can not be met with their income and they are instead covered with taxes on the higher income of older Americans who may never see their own grandchildren.

Originally Posted by crazybird

The countries with the biggest population are the poverty stricken countries. The most prosperous countries have the least amount of children. Doesn't make sense.

CB it's a function of opportunity costs. Poorer people having fewer choices just have children. Those with more choices choose fewer children. An economist named Becker wrote "Children Inferior Goods ?" that explores the phenomenon.

Or you can return to the Classical Economist, Richard Malthus. Please see the source for the full entry on Malthus and his "Principles of Population".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_o ... Population

An Essay on the Principle of Population

Title page of the original edition of 1798.
Author Thomas Robert Malthus
Country England
Language English
Publisher J. Johnson, London
Publication date 1798
Media type Print
ISBN NA

The book An Essay on the Principle of Population was first published anonymously in 1798 through J. Johnson (London). [1] The author was soon identified as The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus. While it was not the first book on population, it has been acknowledged as the most influential work of its era. Its 6th Edition was independently cited as a key influence by both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in developing the theory of natural selection.

A key portion of the book was dedicated to what is now known as Malthus' Iron Law of Population. This pessimistic theory suggested that growing population rates would contribute to a rising supply of labour that would inevitably lower wages. In essence, Malthus feared that continued population growth would lend itself to poverty.

One immediate impact of Malthus's book was that it fueled the debate about the size of the population in Britain and led to (or at least greatly accelerated) the passing of the Census Act 1800. This Act enabled the holding of a national census in England, Wales and Scotland, starting in 1801 and continuing every ten years to the present.

In 1803, Malthus published a major revision to his first edition, as the same title second edition; his final version, the 6th edition, was published in 1826.[1] However, in 1830, Malthus published a condensed version as A Summary View on the Principle of Population, which also included remarks about criticisms of the main book, 32 years since the first edition.

Contents
1 1st edition
2 2nd to 6th editions
3 A summary view
4 Other works that influenced Malthus
5 See also
6 Footnotes
7 References
8 External links

It's big business and the rich who have the most influence on government. They want more profits. What's the easist way to produce more profits? Get cheap labor and more customers. That's why they want amnesty and a ever increasing population. They don't care how they get them.

Population growth, the way it has been going, means nothing more than illegals popping out babies. Unfortunately, we taxpayers educate, feed and clothe them so they can compete for our jobs. This growth is unsustainable, as we are running out of basic things for life, LIKE WATER!
According to Fox News, California farms are struggling to keep crops watered because of the drought and water that used to cost them $37 an acre is now over $600. Of course, this cost will be passed onto the American consumer.
Unlimited growth of any sort without any parameters is no good, including unlimited growth of the economy, which now is heading for the sewer.