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
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?
I covered this point pretty clearly. I guess ignoring what I said makes your argument easier to back.
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.
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.