Hacker News Reader

Comment by folli | Hacker News Reader

“Strong population growth is a key contributor to economic prosperity”

This is the main ingredient of any pyramid scheme.

I've always thought the opposite. If your GDP increases by 1% but so does your population, then you've effectively gained nothing in GDP per capita.

Japan for example has been the poster child for the premise that you desperately need immigration and need to avoid population contraction.

The better solution is to allow your population to contract and seek to boost the per capita output over time through augmentation with higher automation - robotics, AI, et al. The overall net economy size may stagnate or contract... so what, that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is the quality of life of each person.

Less pressure on the environment, less pressure on housing, higher standard of living per capita.

The primary argument I see in the developed world for needing endless overall population expansion, is that a lot of entitlement programs are shaky ponzi schemes that require ever larger numbers of new workers to pay for the last generation's benefits or the entire thing collapses in a shattered social contract. Sweden for example is dealing with that debate:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/now-even-...

The 1% of the population you are talking about needs 20 years before adding to the economy. The results will be visible once they will enter the market.

Well yes, but how suitable is GDP/capita as a measure? e.g. If you care for your own parents or children you have contributed nothing to GDP, but if you put them in a nursing home or daycare then you have. If you grow your own food and eat it, you have contributed nothing to GDP, but if you buy it, you have. If you clean your kitchen you have contributed nothing to GDP but if you hire a cleaner then you have.

A country where your actions are judged on whether they improve improve GDP or GDP/capita would be a terrible place to live.

I agree. My comment clearly shows my ignorance when it comes to macroeconomics so your reply is much appreciated.

Don't forget that when you care for your own parents or grow your own food, that money you've saved by not putting them in a nursing home or buying food, can either be saved, invested or spent on something else.

Lots of people spending lots of money may boost GDP in the short term, but if it isn't sustainable, then there will be a corresponding fall in GDP in future.

GDP is actually a pretty damn good measure, and if it is slowing, then it matters to us all.

> that money you've saved

Doing things yourself is not free: these tasks take time, which is then not available for other jobs.

Well yes, but how suitable is GDP/capita as a measure?

Pretty good indicator given its simplicity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PP...

Is there a metric as simple as that that correlates as well with quality of living for a majority of the population?

GDP might best be thought of as a measure of how much economy there is to be taxed. A government can effectively raise taxes by getting more people to outsource their needs.

This is especially laughable as a claim when you look at European countries with high immigration and at best very weak economic growth. How do they explain that?

I cringe when i hear western european leaders talk about how their countries must accept immigration from third world countries to "save the economy" or "stabilize the social service systems". Even if these immigrants end up to be net tax payers after all the costs of feeding, housing, integrating these people... well, guess what, eventually they get old too and this circle starts over.

> well, guess what, eventually they get old too and this circle starts over.

Our economies are built on the assumption of endless growth. Those immigrants better have children above the replacement rate.

Sorry to tell you that there is a big difference between regular immigrants and refugees. A regular Immigrant to Europe usually is a net win from day one because they have been educated for free in their country of origin, while the upfront cost of raising someone in your own country with your own taxes is quite high (Kindergarten, school, university...).

>> "Even if these immigrants end up to be net tax payers after all the costs of feeding, housing, integrating these people"

So, I don't know how immigration works on your planet, but here in the real world immigrants do not get free "feeding, housing" or free anything-else. In fact a key condition in even the most open/lenient countries is that you must show proof that you can provide for yourself. Any other way would simply not make any sense, and I am always in awe at the level of confabulation needed to believe these nativist fairy tales.

Or maybe you're one of these people who mistake immigrants for refugees?

Which ones are that?

It's an honest question. I can't think of any. But for all I know, immigration to some Andorra/Albania/whatever has been significantly higher than emigration every year for the past ten. I can't recall reading anything with data and I'd like to know.

Correlation does not mean causation. People migrate to richer countries. Richer countries are higher on the technological frontier and therefore it's more difficult to increase their per capita productivity, and therefore have weak growth.

The difference is that in a pyramid scheme regardless of how many people enter at the bottom, people further up are putting in a fixed amount and then stop contributing. The money in the pyramid only flows upwards. In the case of population growth new people act as a multiplier for people already in the network - businesses are able to grow with new customers, provide new services, hire more people, pay them, and they buy things, so money flows both up and down the pyramid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com