3 ms·

"They did not become rich because they had tons of people." This is completely false. In North America in particular, the entire economic strategy was built o

"They did not become rich because they had tons of people." This is completely false. In North America in particular, the entire economic strategy was built on large scale immigration. Most nations become rich by 'adding bodies' into a functioning economy - and by nothing else. ---> Why do you think that the US and Canada are so keen on immigration? And why economists want Japan to have immigration? <---- Canada's population 100 years ago was a fraction of what it it is today - do you think it would be 'as rich' with just a few million people? Perhaps on a per-capita basis, but then probably not. WORKERS = GDP. So long as they are integrated into a working economy. I do not like this approach to growth but it's how many nations do it. Of course - 'adding bodies' into a dysfunctional economy, or where there are no means for those new bodies to add economic activity ... will be bad. Hence - China, India, Africa. I think we should find better ways to achieve growth - but 'body count' is still the number ONE way that entities around the world try to do it. Canadian city mayors are all clamouring for more bodies = more tax base = more power.

ekianjo 9y ago
adding bodies is not enough to get rich. if that were the case then all current developing countries would be world power on their own rights. Japan was a world power back in late 1800 despite having a relatively small population. gdp is headcount times productivity. seems like you forgot productivity in your equation.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  That only works with globalization. As a technology person, I’m very productive by GDP standards. But because of dumb policy decisions, that productivity is completely dependent on the less productive outputs from places like Saudi Arabia and China.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio..., Japan was the 8th most populous political unit in the world, after China, the British Empire, Russia, France (including colonial possessions), United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Dutch East Indies. Except for China (questionable) and the Dutch East Indies, those were all considered world powers in their own right. The population of Japan at this point was larger than that of the UK (by 10%), metropolitan France (same), Italy (by 30%), the Ottoman Empire (by 30%), Spain (more than 2x). Going back one more century, to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... we see Japan in _6th_ place, after the Qing empire, Maratha Empire, British Empire, French Republic, Russian Empire. Of course in both cases Japan was not a huge part of total world population. It was about 2.5% in 1900 and about 3% in 1800. But that didn't matter when most of the world population wasn't trying to be a world power at all (e.g. they were Chinese peasants). And Japan was more or less comparable to the other major world powers of the time in terms of population. Now productivity is, of course, important: There's a reason the Dutch East Indies were not considered a serious power in 1900 and Japan was. And we can talk about correlation vs causation (e.g. higher productivity might have been enabling more population growth, leading to high-productivity societies becoming more populous). But just in terms of raw numbers, Japan was in fact one of the most populous countries in the world in the 19th century. I agree with your overall point that just adding bodies is not enough. But the premise of the grandparent post was that what works is adding bodied to a _functioning_ economy, which is where the productivity assumption comes in. If you add bodies as fast as you can without hurting your productivity (too much, at least), that's the path to economic success at least in the 19th and early 20th century.
idrios 9y ago
Immigration =/= breeding. High fertility rates usually mean: - People are having more children to provide manual labor. - People are getting together with each other because they don't have as many distractions from the modern world. - People haven't been taught safe sex or don't have access to protection. - The culture of a region hasn't caught up with the times. High immigration usually means: - The nation is a desirable place to move to. - Successful immigrants to that nation are bringing valuable and useful skills. I agree with your point that adding more people strengthens the economy when most of those people are contributing to the GDP (and weaken the economy if they consume more than they produce), but I am bothered by your absolutisms ("This is completely false" | "Most nations become rich by 'adding bodies' [...] and nothing else"). High immigration is a symptom of an already strong economy, and high fertility is often a symptom of a developing economy.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  I don't agree - and your comment is borderline bigoted. :) My grandmother had 11 children, and educated them all quite ably. First - breeding is far more preferable than immigration because there are myriads of cultural aspects that newcomers will not ever fathom as most adult immigrants will never fully integrate into a new society. In Canada - significant numbers of newcomers will never even achieve basic French/English comprehension skills - even if it's only 5%, they cannot participate in the economy and it crushes 'productivity' numbers for that cohort. Even in 'successful' immigration countries like Canada - rates of unemployment are higher, wages are lower, and rates of criminality are higher for immigrants than for natural born citizens (not including Aboriginals). FYI the 'civilized' people who have all discovered 'contraception' are literally dying out within just a few generations. The only way those communities can exist is by bringing in immigrants who 'haven't been taught safe sex or behind the times'. Issues of 'personal choice and freedom' aside - the issue of birth control is having effects upon civilization like nothing we've even before. Add this to places like Africa, wherein we now can feed and clothe vast quantities of people, and wherein having quantities of children outside of established families / employment is normative leading to population explosions in poverty. These are wild times. Westerners should have a little bit more children, everyone else a few less, and things would work out just a little bit better, tensions would be lower, productivity would be better.
davidf18 9y ago
Increased wealth comes from automation. From tbe beginning the colonies had a labor shortage compared with over populated Europe making the cost of labor expensive pushing people to automate and improve manufacturing processes such as standardization and interchangeable parts. The policies for rapid immigration was because of the high cost of labor caused by the scarcity of labor.

ekianjo 9y ago

adding bodies is not enough to get rich. if that were the case then all current developing countries would be world power on their own rights. Japan was a world power back in late 1800 despite having a relatively small population. gdp is headcount times productivity. seems like you forgot productivity in your equation.

Spooky23 9y ago
That only works with globalization. As a technology person, I’m very productive by GDP standards. But because of dumb policy decisions, that productivity is completely dependent on the less productive outputs from places like Saudi Arabia and China.
bzbarsky 9y ago
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio..., Japan was the 8th most populous political unit in the world, after China, the British Empire, Russia, France (including colonial possessions), United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Dutch East Indies. Except for China (questionable) and the Dutch East Indies, those were all considered world powers in their own right. The population of Japan at this point was larger than that of the UK (by 10%), metropolitan France (same), Italy (by 30%), the Ottoman Empire (by 30%), Spain (more than 2x). Going back one more century, to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... we see Japan in _6th_ place, after the Qing empire, Maratha Empire, British Empire, French Republic, Russian Empire. Of course in both cases Japan was not a huge part of total world population. It was about 2.5% in 1900 and about 3% in 1800. But that didn't matter when most of the world population wasn't trying to be a world power at all (e.g. they were Chinese peasants). And Japan was more or less comparable to the other major world powers of the time in terms of population. Now productivity is, of course, important: There's a reason the Dutch East Indies were not considered a serious power in 1900 and Japan was. And we can talk about correlation vs causation (e.g. higher productivity might have been enabling more population growth, leading to high-productivity societies becoming more populous). But just in terms of raw numbers, Japan was in fact one of the most populous countries in the world in the 19th century. I agree with your overall point that just adding bodies is not enough. But the premise of the grandparent post was that what works is adding bodied to a _functioning_ economy, which is where the productivity assumption comes in. If you add bodies as fast as you can without hurting your productivity (too much, at least), that's the path to economic success at least in the 19th and early 20th century.

idrios 9y ago

Immigration =/= breeding. High fertility rates usually mean: - People are having more children to provide manual labor. - People are getting together with each other because they don't have as many distractions from the modern world. - People haven't been taught safe sex or don't have access to protection. - The culture of a region hasn't caught up with the times. High immigration usually means: - The nation is a desirable place to move to. - Successful immigrants to that nation are bringing valuable and useful skills. I agree with your point that adding more people strengthens the economy when most of those people are contributing to the GDP (and weaken the economy if they consume more than they produce), but I am bothered by your absolutisms ("This is completely false" | "Most nations become rich by 'adding bodies' [...] and nothing else"). High immigration is a symptom of an already strong economy, and high fertility is often a symptom of a developing economy.

alexasmyths 9y ago
I don't agree - and your comment is borderline bigoted. :) My grandmother had 11 children, and educated them all quite ably. First - breeding is far more preferable than immigration because there are myriads of cultural aspects that newcomers will not ever fathom as most adult immigrants will never fully integrate into a new society. In Canada - significant numbers of newcomers will never even achieve basic French/English comprehension skills - even if it's only 5%, they cannot participate in the economy and it crushes 'productivity' numbers for that cohort. Even in 'successful' immigration countries like Canada - rates of unemployment are higher, wages are lower, and rates of criminality are higher for immigrants than for natural born citizens (not including Aboriginals). FYI the 'civilized' people who have all discovered 'contraception' are literally dying out within just a few generations. The only way those communities can exist is by bringing in immigrants who 'haven't been taught safe sex or behind the times'. Issues of 'personal choice and freedom' aside - the issue of birth control is having effects upon civilization like nothing we've even before. Add this to places like Africa, wherein we now can feed and clothe vast quantities of people, and wherein having quantities of children outside of established families / employment is normative leading to population explosions in poverty. These are wild times. Westerners should have a little bit more children, everyone else a few less, and things would work out just a little bit better, tensions would be lower, productivity would be better.

davidf18 9y ago

Increased wealth comes from automation. From tbe beginning the colonies had a labor shortage compared with over populated Europe making the cost of labor expensive pushing people to automate and improve manufacturing processes such as standardization and interchangeable parts. The policies for rapid immigration was because of the high cost of labor caused by the scarcity of labor.