4 ms·
The goal is not to boost productivity but to boost GDP growth of which productivity growth is one component. A larger population, all other things being equal,
by vasilipupkin 10y ago
The goal is not to boost productivity but to boost GDP growth of which productivity growth is one component. A larger population, all other things being equal, leads to more GDP growth. All things are not equal when you compare India and US, so that comparison is not relevant. Compare US with current number of people vs US with 10 times fewer people. Which one is better ?
- joeyo 10y agoAssuming you mean GDP per-capita ... maybe? I suspect that GDP is highly correlated with productivity, anyway. Which way does the causality go? Why should the US not have many fewer people and why couldn't that be better? There's nothing magical about 315 million people. A much smaller population would be better for ecosystems, global warming, etc. I'd demand the proviso that the population shouldn't be decimated overnight and that the age distribution can't be too skewed (too many youth or too many old). But barring that, I don't see why some lower population (even tenfold fewer) couldn't be "better".
- vasilipupkin 10y agoI am talking about better not in some sort of philosophical sense, but in terms of GDP and GDP per capita
- joeyo 10y agoEven then you haven't proven your point: might not GDP per capita go up if the population goes down?
- vasilipupkin 10y agoGDP per capita for those remaining indivuduals would only go up if those who disappeard were somehow destroying GDP per capita for those who remained. How is that possible in any reasonable state of the world ? As long as those who disappeared where on average non zero marginal product, then their disappearance would lower GDP per capita for the remaining ones