tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35714401.post116111974131994903..comments2023-11-05T10:11:40.231+01:00Comments on Real Environment: On Population GrowthChris Muirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00008164143878605805noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35714401.post-1161292542378215002006-10-19T22:15:00.000+01:002006-10-19T22:15:00.000+01:00From my experience (as opposed to in depth researc...From my experience (as opposed to in depth research) economists see people as an input, much as land or capital are inputs. Therefore, in some sense, more people can be good for the economy, or more likely, neutral, since everyone produces (on average) what they consume (purely in a mathematical sense). The putative problem of population decline is really only a concern in Europe, Australia and Japan, where young people are net payers to the "system" (in that they work more, pay higher taxes, and use less services) and old people are net borrowers (work less, pay lower taxes, and use more services). That is why I argue that with proper policy changes, the negative impacts of population decline can be mitigated. <BR/><BR/>Another option is to permit more immigration, however this (supposedly) erodes the cultural fabric of the German, French, Dutch, or other peoples. Nonetheless, it is interesting that politicians promote policies that increase birth, so there are more laborers, but block immigration of young people who will "steal" jobs. It's pretty hard to conceive of how both statements could be true, and in fact, I think this whole mess of increasing birth rates is at best meant to preserve cultural heritage and at worst is thinnly veiled racismChris Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008164143878605805noreply@blogger.com