Hacker News Reader

Comment by yoran | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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-...

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com