No, population increases don't automatically increase consumption or demand, because those require money. Babies have no money. Economic consumption can occur o

No, population increases don't automatically increase consumption or demand, because those require money. Babies have no money. Economic consumption can occur only if someone gives you money, in most cases either an employer or a relative (such as a parent or spouse). However, an expanded workforce is more productive and thus can allow for more overall consumption (as long as money is distributed somehow to consumers), which is why the addition of women to the workforce is not a negative. And there's actually no limit to an individual person's consumption, as long as they keep acquiring the money for it. Thus, a working parent may end up spending more money than a nonworking parent, which increases economic demand. Of course, the compensation for specific jobs can vary dramatically, depending on localized supply and demand. In some cases there's an oversupply of labor, but in other cases there's an undersupply. Filling an undersupply of labor can certainly be a net positive. The devil is in the details. Theoretically, roughly speaking, more labor is always good overall, but needless to say, the distribution of income is not even close to equal, which can create localized situations where more labor available in a specific area is not beneficial to the existing labor in that area. I'm ignoring the negative environmental consequences of increases population, which I normally wouldn't do. I just think it's very odd to argue that the addition of parents to the workforce is a negative while the addition of their children to the workforce is a positive.