S
stinkcat_14
Guest
On the other hand, if we have more kids, we won’t need the jobs for at least 18 years, so the economy does have time to adjust.We need more jobs now and we don’t have them.
Bigger Families are Solution to Economic Crisis (from Vatican Bank president)
- Status
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
Maybe in the longer-run (30-50 years?). The author of the article suggested that population was the cause of the current financial crisis, which is false to the point it doesn’t even need to be argued against. It’s like someone wasting their time refuting the “world is flat”.
Population doesn’t determine economic growth per se, but rather, the relation of population to the stock of capital (technology), with capital bearing more importance. An increase in population merely means the United States will shift to more labour-intensive methods of production. The consequences of such would lead to diseconomies of scale (the U.S. currently faces an obesity crisis), a reduction in leisure time as well as real GDP (no OECD member is geared towards labour-intensive production).
C
Catholic90
Guest
That makes no sense. The unemployment rate has been high for several years. WE NEED JOBS NOW, not in 18 years. (and decent jobs, not just service jobs).
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Your assumption here is that an increase in population necessarily means a decrease in capital accumulation. It is possible for population and capital to grow simultaneously. It also depends on the state of technology which affects the productivity of capital and labor when both are combined. Finally, it also depends on human capital as well. So the grand answer, is: it depends.
R
Rence
Guest
It doesn’t make sense to me either. Someone’s going to have to explain it so I understand it. You’re right, we need jobs now…how is having more children going to solve the problem when their parents won’t be able to support these new children? People are having trouble supporting themselves and their children now because they can’t find jobs, can’t find high enough paying jobs to match the cost of living, and can’t find jobs that offer good enough health benefits. How is having more children going to NOT burden them more? I’m sorry, I just don’t see the rationale behind the statement of having more kids to ease the economic woes of families.
The entitlement coffers are running out of funds because there’s not enough people in the workforce to replenish the coffers. There’s not enough people in the workforce to replenish the coffers because the workers can’t find jobs, and well-enough paying jobs to contribute to the coffers. How is having more children going to help that when unemployment is so high right now. Right now there are not enough jobs for people who can and are willing to work…soooooo…have MORE children? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Bigger families? To work in what fields?
B
Borealis
Guest
How many of the 50 million abortion victims would have gone to school? More teachers. How many of them would have bought a car? More manufacturing. How many would have bought a house? More construction. How many of them would have bought more CDs and DVDs? More entertainment dollars spent into the economy. How many of them would have made great contributions to society and the economy?
N
Nec5
Guest
There is also the technology issue. People seem to break down into one of two camps. The first camp that I’m kind of in, is that when a technology replaces workers, the new job creation involving that new technology does not usually cover the lost workers. For example, 3 workers lose their job to a machine. The technology for creating/perfecting that machine and its related affects is usually less than 3. Therefore, you have higher unemployment.
The other camp says that there will always be new jobs because the new technology and all its derivatives often create an equal or even higher number of jobs. The only issue is training and retraining workers to fit those new technologies.
I guess we’re in the process of finding out. Granted, this is only one angle affecting the economy and jobs but it is important.
The other camp says that there will always be new jobs because the new technology and all its derivatives often create an equal or even higher number of jobs. The only issue is training and retraining workers to fit those new technologies.
I guess we’re in the process of finding out. Granted, this is only one angle affecting the economy and jobs but it is important.
J
JimG
Guest
Ultimately, technology creates jobs. I imagine that there was some consternation when automation replaced the thousands of telephone operators once used by AT&T. All those jobs are gone. But AT&T now employs a multitude more people than it did then. Technology expanded the company; more people are working because of it.
It is nearly axiomatic that a growing population thrives while a declining population suffers. People move out of small towns into large cities–why? Because that’s where the jobs are. And like technology, a growing population creates jobs, wealth, and resources.
I imagine that around 6,000 BC, a resident of the city of Ur would have said that the land was supporting all the people that it possibly could. What would he have made of New York City or Hong Kong?
Europe is surely in danger of a demographic winter. It may be too late to avoid it. A declining population spiral, once started, is hard to reverse, and is fatal.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
More children =
Carry on…
- More goods needed to care for the babies and children. Which means more jobs for those creating those goods.
- More doctors needed.
- More teachers needed to teach those kids.
- Larger homes to care for those children–more jobs in the real estate market.
- Larger vehicles to carry those kids–more jobs created in all auto related industries.
- More clothes, toys, food, medicine, and supplies of life that all kids and all people need, which would result in more jobs making those items and in selling those items.
- More babies (hopefully) born into a Christian life, thus making the Christian faith expand its base.
- More kids going to Catholic schools, helping them stya open.
- More families going to Catholic Church.
Carry on…
J
JimG
Guest
Exactly. Everything you mentioned means an increase in economic activity. Growing population leads to a growing GNP.More children =
Beyond the obvious fact that children are a blessing–GOD MANDATED THAT WE BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, it is really not an option.
- More goods needed to care for the babies and children. Which means more jobs for those creating those goods.
- More doctors needed.
- More teachers needed to teach those kids.
- Larger homes to care for those children–more jobs in the real estate market.
- Larger vehicles to carry those kids–more jobs created in all auto related industries.
- More clothes, toys, food, medicine, and supplies of life that all kids and all people need, which would result in more jobs making those items and in selling those items.
- More babies (hopefully) born into a Christian life, thus making the Christian faith expand its base.
- More kids going to Catholic schools, helping them stya open.
- More families going to Catholic Church.
Carry on…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There is an indirect relationship between non-family “transfer payments” in an economy and births. The two move up and down in opposite directions in the developed world. There are basically two forms of transfer payments. One is based on relationships (mostly inter-familial but also social), which is essentially voluntary, and the other is government-imposed. If a person’s income from labor and/or property is left reasonably free of compulsory transfer payments, that person tends to make voluntary transfer payments, which makes rearing of children easier. The more the government mandates in non-familial transfer payments, the less the individual can dedicate to inter-familial transfer payments. Recognizing this, people tend to have fewer children when the government “crowds out” voluntary transfer payments.It doesn’t make sense to me either. Someone’s going to have to explain it so I understand it. You’re right, we need jobs now…how is having more children going to solve the problem when their parents won’t be able to support these new children? People are having trouble supporting themselves and their children now because they can’t find jobs, can’t find high enough paying jobs to match the cost of living, and can’t find jobs that offer good enough health benefits. How is having more children going to NOT burden them more? I’m sorry, I just don’t see the rationale behind the statement of having more kids to ease the economic woes of families.
The entitlement coffers are running out of funds because there’s not enough people in the workforce to replenish the coffers. There’s not enough people in the workforce to replenish the coffers because the workers can’t find jobs, and well-enough paying jobs to contribute to the coffers. How is having more children going to help that when unemployment is so high right now. Right now there are not enough jobs for people who can and are willing to work…soooooo…have MORE children? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Bigger families? To work in what fields?
So, for example, when it comes to education, if one’s income is reasonably free, one might spend very substantial sums to pay for his child’s education, and people tend to do that if they can. On the other hand, if the government takes more of his income to fund public educational institutions, it leaves the individual with less freedom to pay for childrens’ education, and he tends to limit his family (and also resort to public education, thus increasing the government’s demand for more transfer payments). The political background is, of course, that one political orientation holds that the more that is taken (transferred) from the earning individual and distributed to people who do not pay for things like education, that “egaltarianism” is a societal benefit, while another holds that the likely success of the inter-familial transfers is greater because the higher level of what one could call “cultural literacy” and family motivational factors will cause the latter to provide greater numbers of people with higher skills and motivation. (It may also be noted that increased taxation alters the normal 1/3-2/3 relationship between property income and labor income, but that’s a whole other story.)
Of course, there is also the separate but related question of “pricing out” entry-level workers by government-imposed “price supports” of labor.(e.g. minimum wage laws or granting advantages to unions) It seems good on the surface, but can have the effect of preventing or slowing many from obtaining job skills. (Even burger-flipping inculcates very basic job skills like showing up on time, taking orders, organizing the mind to accomplish a task, seeing the logic of task sequencing.) The tendency of government to “price out” low-end jobs, of course, also increases pressure on government to increase transfer payments which, naturally, leads to at least efforts on the part of government to finance them by further reducing the “surplus” the taxpayer has, which he might otherwise dedicate to voluntary transfer payments.
Unfortunately, right now we have a situation in which mandated transfer payments are growing while the ability of individuals to make them are not. There are, presently, attempts by government to exact further transfer payments from those who have surplus in excess of consumption without regard to what the individuals might otherwise dedicate that surplus to. In addition, manifest government intention to increase mandates of other kinds (energy price increase mandates,and employment cost mandates) also affects employment. The success of the government’s doing so typically reduces individuals’ ability to make voluntary transfers, therefore births, which, in the long run, also increases the pressure to further increase mandated transfer payments.
W
Warrenton
Guest
No, it’s easy to reverse.
J
JimG
Guest
It should be, but as a social force, depopulation is hard to overcome. Witness the attempts being made in Russia and perhaps other countries to increase births.No, it’s easy to reverse.
N
Nec5
Guest
Yeah, but do you think that will always be the case? Or will there be a point where technology essentially replaces humans in terms of job creation?
J
JimG
Guest
Technology will always be a factor in terms of increasing productivity, but it takes humans to create technology. And new technology creates more jobs. The technology introduced by NASA and the space program, for example, created not only thousands of NASA and private contractor jobs, but thousands of permanent jobs in the private sector. And twenty years ago, there were no web based businesses. Ideally, technology needs a growing population to keep pace with the job creation.
N
Nec5
Guest
I’m not entirely convinced, but here’s a recent article adding more evidence in favor of your point:
townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/07/27/job_destruction_makes_us_richer
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for the link. Henry Hazlitt makes the same point in his book “Economics in One Lesson.” Ever since before the Industrial Revolution, people have worried about machines taking the jobs of men. Henry Ford’s first automobile production facility had no production line. Groups of men worked on building autos to completion in one location. I’m sure workers worried about machinery replacing men. But as productivity increased, the automakers employed vastly more workers than before.
Right now I’m mourning the impending death of the dial-tone telephone line, which never loses power when the electricity goes out. But it will soon be dead. And an army of telecommunication workers are busy selling its replacement(s).
P
Petergee
Guest
What evidence do you base that on?No, it’s easy to reverse.
The majority of the world’s countries now have fertility rates which are below replacement level. In many of these countries the rate is way, way below replacement level.
**No **country whose fertility rate has fallen below replacement level has ever been able to get it back above replacement level again, despite in many cases very expensive Government programs to try to promote childbirth, through tax rebates, child endowment, maternity/paternity leave, education/advertising programs, child friendly workplaces etc.
It’s true though that no country’s government yet has done the most obvious thing to solve the fertility problem, which is to ban sale of contraceptives.
I could give them a lot of other ideas too. For example, if six people each have an income of $20,000 per year they pay no income tax. Even if they live in the same house and share all the bills. But if a father with a dependent wife and 4 dependent children earns $120,000 a year (which is also $20,000 fo each person) the family gets whacked with a huge income tax bill.
And many governments actually subsidise the cost of abortions and contraceptives.
A
adv
Guest
Russian is advocating more babies to be born because of economic crisis. Google it.
J
jerry_joseph
Guest
Bigger families are good for the society…You should determine the number of children depending upon your income level…If you have enough income to support more kids , it is advisible to have more children and if you belongs to low income group, it is advisible to limit the number of kids to two or three.All such factors such as education,clothing,food etc should be concidered…
- Status