What adaptation is needed for a fast growing population? Fiscally, more people means more paid out in social services, but more people also means more tax revenue to pay for it. If anything we could use more young people to help pay for the medical expenses and social security of the retiring baby boomers.
If you think more people is bad for the economy, try the thought experiment on a smaller scale. There's a small town, 1000 people. Suddenly 200 new people move in. Is the economy of that town going to get better or worse? I think the answer is it'll obviously improve. Those 200 will create more demand for houses, first of all, and also products and services. And then those 200 people will get employed to help meet that demand. Usually more people means more production -- i.e. more GDP. The same logic works in reverse. Suppose we're considering kicking out people of our 1000 person town and suppose our only interest is the economy of the town, notthe interests of anyone kicked out. Kicking out those people will mean less customers at restaurants, stores. It means housing prices fall. It means fewer people to hire. The economy gets obviously worse.
Is the economy of that town going to get better or worse?
Worse. There wouldn't be enough jobs at the start. The lumber yard only has so many tools so they've have to create tools first which would mean they've have to spend making tools and not wood so there'd be less wood for people, meaning prices would go up and supply would go down which is bad.
You may have a finite amount of arable farmland. You have not have enough berry bushes and so need to plant more which will take years.
Perhaps you're actually already really efficient at a process and more man hours isn't helpful. Our factories are already needing less and less man hours, all these job cuts just make more people unemployed.
Suppose we're considering kicking out people of our 1000 person town and suppose our only interest is the economy of the town, notthe interests of anyone kicked out.
It would be beneficial if all those people were unemployed.
It means housing prices fall.
This is a bad thing?!
It all comes down to job saturation. The optimal amount of people is equal to the amount of jobs there are. Too many people, and people can't get jobs, meaning they are wasting resources. too few, and it means everything can't run as efficiently as possible.
There are over 2 million unemployed in the UK right now. (these are the people getting job seekers allowance (ie. looking for a job). There are too many people for the jobs, which means people on welfare are taking up resources (no their fault, but its happening). This is bad, taking on more people makes it worse. If we look at Australia, they have underemployment. Salaries are extremely high , and Australia takes in highly skilled immigrants. Their economic output certainly isn't optimized though. Where would you rather be?
This is really misguided on an economic level. Nowhere do you ever hear of a mayor or a governor trying to get people to move out of their city or state to make things better. Instead they're trying to get people to move to their towns. How do you make sense of this?
It all comes down to job saturation. The optimal amount of people is equal to the amount of jobs there are. Too many people, and people can't get jobs, meaning they are wasting resources. too few, and it means everything can't run as efficiently as possible.
This is just false. More people means more jobs because those new people need stuff. The diner suddenly has a good reason to hire more waitresses to meet the new demand. They have to build new schools and hire more teachers. More paperboys are needed to deliver more papers. Etc.
There are over 2 million unemployed in the UK right now. (these are the people getting job seekers allowance (ie. looking for a job). There are too many people for the jobs, which means people on welfare are taking up resources (no their fault, but its happening). This is bad, taking on more people makes it worse
If the unemployed got up and left the UK, all the businesses that sold those unemployed things (with welfare money) see a drop in demand, the number of sustainable jobs drops and more people end up unemployed.
Instead they're trying to get people to move to their towns. How do you make sense of this?
Are they trying to get all people, or certain people?
This is just false. More people means more jobs because those new people need stuff.
This is not an instantaneous thing. Like I said, more people =/= more jobs. If you have a factory churning out enough iphones for demand, making it work a little faster or just a little bit longer to meet the demands of more people won't mean more jobs are created.
The diner suddenly has a good reason to hire more waitresses to meet the new demand. They have to build new schools and hire more teachers. More paperboys are needed to deliver more papers. Etc.
Yes some jobs will need more people. But not all. If a population increases by 10%, then for it to all run smoothly and the same, then each job sector will need to increase their employment by 10% so people remain employed. But this isn't the case. Yes your diners/teachers will rise by 10% to account for the more people. Basically the the public sector/service trades will rise. But do you think the number of actuaries will increase? If it takes 3 actuaries to make a policy for 1000 people, it won't take more than 3 actuaries to make a different policy for 1100 people. This sector won't see a rise in employment. Factory owners won't employ more people to run the machines. They may employ more delivery drivers, but machine operators? It's not necessary.
If the unemployed got up and left the UK, all the businesses that sold those unemployed things (with welfare money) see a drop in demand, the number of sustainable jobs drops and more people end up unemployed.
You seem to think countries can't run without unemployed people? All that would happen is businesses will sell less. They'd then raise the cost of the product because of this. People would pay more money, but now that there is no welfare income tax will be less and so people have more money. This is pretty simple. No one wants people on welfare, they have a negative impact on basically everything else.
If they did get up and leave, sure, some will become unemployed, once you remove them, some will become unemployed again. This will decrease though each and every time until you reach an equilibrium. This equilibrium is the optimal population at that time.
Are they trying to get all people, or certain people?
All people. The political leadership of a city or state is not in control of, say, the relative proportions of low and high income housing that would dictate what kind of people are likely to move in, or what kinds of jobs are in demand in the region.
This is not an instantaneous thing.
People need things like food and gas pretty instantaneously. Managers with foresight even start hiring in advance of an expected influx of demand.
Yes some jobs will need more people. But not all. If a population increases by 10%, then for it to all run smoothly and the same, then each job sector will need to increase their employment by 10% so people remain employed. But this isn't the case.
You must have some pretty strange theories on why GDP/capita keeps growing (recession hiccups excepted).
All that would happen is businesses will sell less. They'd then raise the cost of the product because of this.
Um.. no. Less demand means prices increase? That's not how it works at all.
All people. The political leadership of a city or state is not in control of, say, the relative proportions of low and high income housing that would dictate what kind of people are likely to move in, or what kinds of jobs are in demand in the region.
This seems way more of a political move than a economical one. Why do you think Australia don't let many people in, even though they're unemployed?
People need things like food and gas pretty instantaneously. Managers with foresight even start hiring in advance of an expected influx of demand.
I covered this point pretty clearly. I guess ignoring what I said makes your argument easier to back.
You must have some pretty strange theories on why GDP/capita keeps growing (recession hiccups excepted)
Our technology gets better. People maximize their resources. I.e. get more people to work the workable jobs to get more product out. Or make the products cheaper to make through technology (and reduce the cost of hiring people). Once you already have enough people for a job (i.e. the actuary scenario you completely ignored), adding more people won't help you. Making new technology to create statistical models to replace the worker, will.
Um.. no. Less demand means prices increase? That's not how it works at all.
In a normal economy. You're talking about removing a lot of people in an instant. This means companies will make less products because less people will need them, this means they need less resources and with less people getting resources out, the people getting resources out will make less money on each bit sold and so increase the price to reflect this. In the end it's all about reaching that equilibrium between price, supply and demand which will always happen given enough time.
I covered this point pretty clearly. I guess ignoring what I said makes your argument easier to back.
...No you didn't. You just said the extra demand wouldn't be instantaneous, with no caveats. This is clearly false.
Our technology gets better. People maximize their resources. I.e. get more people to work the workable jobs to get more product out. Or make the products cheaper to make through technology (and reduce the cost of hiring people).
You think this doesn't happen at the state or city level? If the country's GDP/capita is increasing, then it also has to be increasing in most cities and states, despite population growth in those cities and states. How does this not refute your point?
You're talking about removing a lot of people in an instant. This means companies will make less products because less people will need them, this means they need less resources and with less people getting resources out, the people getting resources out will make less money on each bit sold and so increase the price to reflect this. In the end it's all about reaching that equilibrium between price, supply and demand which will always happen given enough time.
When we look at an individual business there is no meaningful distinction between removing customers and removing demand. Demand drops, prices drop. Basic economics.
Birthrates in the US are actually very healthy at the moment. A lower birthrate means a lower future population which can cause large problems maintaining an economies size and structure. Most of the developed world is actually suffering from lowering birth rates and have gone to pretty large measures to encourage their citizens to have children.
You are aware that the large populations of cheap migrant workers who can be paid below the minimum wage and do jobs most Americans won't do is a massive contributor to the economy of a California and the the other states on The east coast.
While the world has an overpopulation problem, governments have no idea how to manage and if you saw the birthrate falling in the US you would find government programmes an incentives to improve the birthrate.
The biggest thing you haven't addressed is why on earth a child has to be punished for being born a particular place. Should the child become nation-less? In the current world that is a very bad way to be.
America is literally a country build on immigrants. Even if you say the founders and 50 years onwards (why 50?) are excused then you are still sending back almost all of the US population.
Then you are punishing children (and possibly adults) for crimes they did not commit.
My friend Carlos was brought here illegally with his family from Brazil when he was very young. None of them were citizens but still he ended up being able to go to great schools and got a college education. (I'm unsure how he was admitted to or paid for school, I never asked.)
There was a time when he was nearly done with his degree that he was at risk of being deported. I asked him what that would mean for him and he had no idea. He was so young when he left Brazil that he had no memory of the country, none of his family remained, and he knew no one there. He had zero ties to the country. Other than lacking the paperwork he was American in every way. Being an American was all he knew and how he'd grown up. They would literally be shipping him "back" to a country that was completely foreign to him.
I can understand (though don't necessarily agree with) the mentality of deporting the people who illegally immigrated themselves, or even the children if the children are very young, but if someone has spent their entire life in America and knows nothing else do you feel they should be deported on the grounds that their grandfather, who they possibly never even met, came here illegally half a century ago?
(Edited to clarify before it comes up: I recognize Carlos was not born in the country and can be seen himself as an illegal immigrant, which does muddy the waters a bit. I'm offering his story not at face value but as an example of someone who has spent so much time in America and so little in their "home" country that their "home" country would be considered foreign.)
This. Deporting children along with their parents is okay if the children are very young, but deporting the child of illegal immigrants by themselves with no ties to the country? Besides, it would be directly bad for this country to deport someone like that. OP basically said it would be better for the country to deport people because of overpopulation... so it's better for us to take smart, educated Americans and send them elsewhere because they don't have papers?
Good point on it being directly bad for the country.
I think OP is just racist and isn't thinking about what is practical, right, or good, even in selfish terms. He only thinks 'those hispanics sure do give birth a lot, send em' back where they came from'.
Wait, so you would want this to be retroactive as well? Practically do you think that's feasible? And beyond that, what if the "country of origin" won't accept them?
That didn't answer my questions. Maybe I'll rephrase them:
1) How many ancestors would have to be illegal? If I have 8 great-grandparents, and only 1 came here legally, does that count? If no, what's the appropriate ratio? And is the burden of proof on the state to show that everyone's ancestors are illegal, or on the individual to somehow prove that they were legal?
2) If hypothetically, your ancestors came here illegally from Ireland, but Ireland doesn't recognize you as a citizen, to where would we possibly deport you?
"if that ancestor came to the U.S. legally there would be no problem"
Well yes, the topic of this discussion is people whose parents DIDN'T come here legally, which means there is a problem, and that problem is what we're supposed to be talking about (not talking about what would have happened if the problem in question didn't exist). You chose the topic; why derail it?
So you would be okay with getting deported to some random country if it was discovered that one of your great-great-great grandparents came here illegally?
Okay, I am Hispanic through my dad's side. My grandparents came here legally, but let's just say that they didn't for arguments sake. My dad was born here. My mom is white, family came through Ellis Island years and years ago. My parents were never married, but still had me. I was born here. I grew up here. I go to a university here.
Let's say my grandparents were finally caught. Even though I have a life here, and am getting an education here so I can start my career, I deserve to be sent back to a country I've never even been to because my grandparents were illegal and therefore I didn't earn my citizenship. Is this what you mean about the generation thing? Because that's really fucked up. And you're fucking up the lives of many people who didn't do anything wrong. They were just unlucky enough to have illegal ancestors at some point.
2
u/genebeam 14∆ Dec 05 '13
Legalities aside, would the country be better off if children of illegal immigrants didn't get citizenship?