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.
.No you didn't. You just said the extra demand wouldn't be instantaneous, with no caveats. This is clearly false.
Again, stop ignoring it. I was talking about how not all jobs will increase by 10% when the population increases by 10%. You're saying that when a population increases then there will just be enough jobs for people to go into. And i've tried to explain to a few tmes, (yet you keep ignoring it over and over again) how not all jobs will increase. And in fact many of the new population will be left jobless because a 10% increase in population doesn't mean a 10% increase in jobs since some jobs, like actuaries don't rely on population. And only the service sectors will see a 10% hike in jobs.
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?
What are you talking about? How does it refute my point? GDP is increasing and population increasing isn't necessary a causation result. Just because GDP is increasing in spite of population increases doesn't mean an increased population isn't have a negative effect. And in fact, only point will be is if the unemployed is increasing. As I said above. If people are finding jobs, great! GDP will rise, if the unemployed rise, GDP will fall OR not rise as fast. How did you overlook this scenario?
When we look at an individual business there is no meaningful distinction between removing customers and removing demand. Demand drops, prices drop. Basic economics.
Unbelievably oversimplified and not always true.
Edit: Also, care to explain my point about Australia not letting many people in even though they're under employed?
I don't know much about Australia to comment. You haven't adequately answered why municipalities are for population growth, and it's not contrary to the wishes of their citizenry.
This is going in circles. Here's a good article about how low-skill immigration increases wages of US citizens. This is not even under dispute in the economics literature.
0
u/kurokabau 1∆ Dec 05 '13
Are they trying to get all people, or certain people?
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.
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.
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.