Science
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNo, what matters is child mortality. People have less children if there is less risk of their children dying. Contraception being available also helps.
I was told, and it is plausible but I haven't verified the information, that the way to fight overpopulation is to provide decent pensions. Where there are no pension systems people have large families so that at least one of their children looks after them in old age.
Places like Bangladesh are already close to replacement levels despite not having pensions to speak of.
People generally want at least one successor - in some societies, it is important that at least one successor be male. But this is not just about support in old age, it may be cultural, it may be religious (ancestor worship in the case of the Chinese), it may be just plain instinctual - we feel the need to have our genes continue.
In general there is very good evidence from around the world that if child healthcare improves, then fertility drops soon after.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWatch the video.
I was told, and it is plausible but I haven't verified the information, that the way to fight overpopulation is to provide decent pensions. Where there are no pension systems people have large families so that at least one of their children looks after them in old age.
Outside of poverty stricken and war torn Africa, the typical family is two parents
with 2 children. With the worldwide average at something like 2.5 children per two
parents.
We know how to reduce big families and the battle is nearly won.
However as demonstrated in the video, the legacy of a recent very rapid rise in the
number of children [0 to 15 yrs] is that for most of the rest of the century we will
have an increasing population as people age and the missing adults get filled in.
To a final population of around 11 billion.
That's what will happen without massive multi-billion fatalities, or mass-sterilization
programs.
All you need to reduce families to replacement levels is healthcare good enough to
ensure that the overwhelming majority of children make it to adulthood, some education,
and access to birth control. And we are doing that already.
Overpopulation [from that perspective] is basically already solved.
Not to say we don't need to keep working on it, but this is a problem we not only know
how to solve but we are nearly done solving it.
27 Jun 14
The real problem today, is how to deal with aging populations. Either the working age population has to learn to live with supporting more older people - this may be possible, but may also cause resentment, or, the working age needs to be increased - advances in healthcare will be useful here.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe best solution to the problem is using advancing technology to reduce
The real problem today, is how to deal with aging populations. Either the working age population has to learn to live with supporting more older people - this may be possible, but may also cause resentment, or, the working age needs to be increased - advances in healthcare will be useful here.
[hopefully to zero] the number of people needed to run the essential parts
of our economy. So that the essentials in life become essentially free, massively
reducing the cost to society of having minimum numbers of people in employment.
The problem is that you have to actually plan to deal with a decreasing necessary
work force because simple free market capitalism is not designed to deal with a
decreasing workforce.
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeWe are already experiencing this problem and it is partly responsible for the increasing disparity in incomes.
The problem is that you have to actually plan to deal with a decreasing necessary
work force because simple free market capitalism is not designed to deal with a
decreasing workforce.
One solution is higher taxes on the top end of the scale, both for individuals and companies coupled with more socialist government.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, yes, we have been experiencing this problem to varying degrees since the beginning
We are already experiencing this problem and it is partly responsible for the increasing disparity in incomes.
One solution is higher taxes on the top end of the scale, both for individuals and companies coupled with more socialist government.
of the industrial revolution. And it's getting steadily worse as technology improves.
Personally my favourite solution [for the present day] is a state paid 'living wage' given
to all adults of working age [with other benefits covering pensioners and kids] which is
just about enough to live on. [probably somewhere in the 10~15 k mark for the UK]
And I would also add in a revenue neutral carbon tax.
This removes the need for a minimum wage and allows for a much more mobile work
force which helps businesses, especially small and start-up businesses. It's simple
to implement and administer, and basically eliminates extreme poverty overnight.
[And yes I know there will be problems with the homeless and certain other edge cases
but you can implement other measures to get them into this program].
It also has a highly stimulating effect on the economy [which we really need right now]
as it gives huge numbers of people greater buying power which is also a benefit to
businesses that would like to sell them stuff.
For those on low [or no] incomes this is a big/huge boost. For those on middling incomes
it will be a net wash with higher tax rates roughly cancelling out the gains [although they
still benefit from the overall boost to the economy, probable reductions in crime, and
the carbon tax]. And for those on High incomes they pay more [along with business taxes]
to pay for this... But they still get all the benefits of the boost to the economy ect ect.
This gives a solid safety net which provides a, low but sufficient, minimum standard of living
which is unaffected by any extra money you earn so it is always worthwhile to earn more money.
Of course the odds of anyone actually implementing anything so 'radical' as this...
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have to say that I have never bought into this idea of 'stimulating' an economy by making money run in circles. All it really does is cause waste.
It also has a highly stimulating effect on the economy [which we really need right now]
as it gives huge numbers of people greater buying power which is also a benefit to
businesses that would like to sell them stuff.
But the idea of a basic wage, I agree with.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally? I thought it was a kind of fundamental idea in economics.
I have to say that I have never bought into this idea of 'stimulating' an economy by making money run in circles. All it really does is cause waste.
But the idea of a basic wage, I agree with.
Money sitting in savings accounts doesn't really do a lot for the economy.
Money 'in circulation' does a lot more work [and good].
And, particularly at the lower end where it has the greatest impact, it doesn't
'create waste' so much as allow people to afford the basics they otherwise couldn't.
Nobody is going to live the high life on this.
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeAlmost all fundamental ideas in economics are fundamentally flawed.
Really? I thought it was a kind of fundamental idea in economics.
Money sitting in savings accounts doesn't really do a lot for the economy.
Nonsense. A 'savings account' is by definition an account whose money is invested into the economy.
The recent economic disaster was because people were not saving, and instead the money being borrowed was fake money - it didn't really exist.
Money 'in circulation' does a lot more work [and good].
Except that money given to the poor, is generally used unproductively - so doesn't really do any work at all.
And, particularly at the lower end where it has the greatest impact, it doesn't
'create waste' so much as allow people to afford the basics they otherwise couldn't.
Yes, it is socially beneficial. It is not however good for the economy.
Nobody is going to live the high life on this.
I agree, but nor is the economy going to improve either.
As I said, I support it for humanitarian reasons not for economic reasons. If you want a fantastic economy above all else then go ahead with total automation and 90% of the populace in dire poverty. Of course this is a problem long term because an even better strategy is to invest in education, and poor people in general get poorer education.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNonsense.
Almost all fundamental ideas in economics are fundamentally flawed.
[b]Money sitting in savings accounts doesn't really do a lot for the economy.
Nonsense. A 'savings account' is by definition an account whose money is invested into the economy.
The recent economic disaster was because people were not saving, and instead the money being borrowed ...[text shortened]... even better strategy is to invest in education, and poor people in general get poorer education.[/b]
If 90% of the populace is in dire poverty then there is almost nobody capable of buying stuff,
and insufficient people with the education to invent stuff, and the economy grinds to a halt.
We tried 99% of the people in dire poverty and 1% uuber wealthy. It was not a time of great
economic development.
Cynicism can be taken too far.
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn Zambia, one of the largest incomes for the economy is the export of copper. It is run by foreign mines. Having a higher percentage of poor people has no real effect on this at all.
If 90% of the populace is in dire poverty then there is almost nobody capable of buying stuff,
and insufficient people with the education to invent stuff, and the economy grinds to a halt.
But then it is already the case that 90% of the populace lives in dire poverty.
We tried 99% of the people in dire poverty and 1% uuber wealthy. It was not a time of great economic development.
I agree that it is a bad long term plan - but mostly because of education.
But I totally disagree that paying poor people so that they buy stuff they don't need, somehow is good for the economy. It isn't.
If on the other hand you are claiming that paying the poor people result in them getting a better education, or getting a job, or working harder at something, then you might have an argument - but that is not what you said originally.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's both good for the economy AND good for them individually.
In Zambia, one of the largest incomes for the economy is the export of copper. It is run by foreign mines. Having a higher percentage of poor people has no real effect on this at all.
But then it is already the case that 90% of the populace lives in dire poverty.
[b]We tried 99% of the people in dire poverty and 1% uuber wealthy. It was not a time of ...[text shortened]... harder at something, then you might have an argument - but that is not what you said originally.
You want a good example...
South USA vs North USA.
Rich few and slaves vs Rich, middle class, and working poor.
And I am talking about their economies and not the war between them.
The anti-slave North kicked the South's butt.
Economists agree that an economy built around slaves is less productive
than one based upon working and middle class.
The Zambian economy would be a whole lot better if it didn't have 90% of the
populace living in dire poverty.
Another example, look at the 'success' of the South American economies who
were held by the Spanish and Portuguese colonialists who found an indigenous
populace who they could make subservient and do all the work as essentially
slaves. Compare that 'success' with the North where the colonialists had no
indigenous populace to do the work for them and they had to build up their
economy with their own work, with a paid [and land owning] workforce.
It's no contest. And it's not like South America is resource poor.
So no, I do not accept your position. It's absolutely better for an economy to
have a large body of consumers who can buy things.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyWell it helps when you are arguing with those who really care about the
What difference does it make whether the majority being in dire poverty is bad for the economy?
This seems just purely academic to me because, regardless of whether it is bad specifically for the economy, it is still BAD, period!
economy when you can [justifiably] claim that helping the poor also helps
the economy.
The more [valid] arguments in your arsenal the better.
29 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am sorry to say your arguments are terrible - because none of your examples have anything to do with a large body of consumers who can buy things.
So no, I do not accept your position. It's absolutely better for an economy to
have a large body of consumers who can buy things.
I fully agree that Zambia would be better off, if the people were richer. I disagree that the economy would improve if we dished out our tax revenues as a basic wage. It might improve over time as people would get better education etc, but since you have to take the money out of the current education system to pay this wage anyway, its kind of counter productive. Far better economically, to invest all available money in education.
The problem is that your claim, is that poor people buying goods improves the economy, but you have not even attempted to show that the actual buying of goods does benefit the economy, instead you have looked for other effects of the poor having more money. This to me suggests you don't believe your own claim. So why are you making it?