This conversation is closed.

Is population growth economically beneficial to a country and its people?


  • thumb
    Feb 2 2013: Myles,
    The growth of population all depends on the country we are talking about. In countries like India and China, a population growth is least beneficial. Population boom means more mouths to feed and the $1000 GDP of countries like India only puts a strain to the economy. Poverty will be one of the major factors to battle with. When the populace increases, every single aspect has to be considered like the medical benefits, education and other miscellaneous benefits.

    You may,ofcourse ,argue that the increased population means more people work and hence more money. But some places have reached a point of saturation beyond which ,even a slight increase may affect the overall economy.

    Case point: United States is the fastest-growing industrialized country in the world. They are also one of the worlds largest providers of food. They welcome tonnes of immigrants every day. Immigrants equal the natives in USA. It initially helped the economy. But studies show that, if the current trend continues, their economy will suffer as a result of the massive population.

    So population growth is,not really, beneficial to the country.
  • thumb
    Feb 2 2013: Myles, Many factors involved in the answer. If it is a failing economic condition then no ... if there is no growth in the GDP then no ... if it increases the social program burden then no .... if there is no growth in the small business or hiring at the corporations then no .... if they do not contribute to the funding of the government structure then no ... if they do not fuel the housing need, then no .... if they arrive illegally they disrupt the flow of immigration quotas, law enforcement, and budgets for programs ... put a burden on food suplies ... burden municipal facilities such as water supplies and sewer treatment ... disrupt education by unplanned growth and make student to teacher ratios unacceptable ... out grow facilities .. etc ..

    It would appear that growth is not always good .... however ... if growth is allowed to increase in controlled incriments through immigration quotas as established by law then it can help in a posative way.

    Officials from the mayor to the president should ensure that growth is stabilized and planned. If not the national ability to house, feed, and care for the population as a whole is placed in jepordized.

    That is why we have immigration laws and border controls and why they should be enforced. The USA is an example of cause and effect when the federal government turns a blind eye to promote political gains.

  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: I believe it comes down to one simple question: Are these people coming into the system to be well educated? If yes, then of course there are going to be beneficial outcomes.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +1
    Feb 3 2013: .

    Yes, if it is below its OPTIAL POINT.

    (For OPTIMAL POINT, see the 1st article, point 10, at
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: G’day Myles

    In Australia immigration has helped a great deal in the past but our infrastructure isn’t able to keep up with our present living standards with too big of a population plus we do have a small problem with water in Australia.

    If the infrastructure & the environment can’t sustain a big population in any country the living standards will keep dropping as the population booms just like it has in other countries in the world today.

  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: Definitely not. Unbridled growth results in environmental degradation and increasing pressure on natural resources. Living in a country with 1.2 billion people where you have to literally compete for a place to stand, is an awful experience as a human. In India, one thing which I have observed is, people with lesser skills multiply faster than ones who are endowed with better skills and earning capacity. Coming out of this tail spin will be a huge challenge for India and this will be closely studied by all countries and lessons drawn.
  • Feb 5 2013: If you can assume a lack of constraints (like resources and power), then population growth and economic growth can grow in tandem. For each new citizen you have an additional labour resource plus an untapped consumer.
    Our monetary system reflects this when capital is extended and paid back with interest. This assumes a growth in the part of the lenders client which ripples through the system.
    However, simple inspection shows this to be an unstable pyramid because of changes in fertility, longevity, increasing health of an aging population, saving vs. investing rates and resource restrictions, you can easily get negative factors.

    There are many positive and negative aspects on the subject, like economies of scale with a rapid population rise creates an extensive transportation system that leads to economic growth, and supply and demand curves shift when the population increase causes shortages of necessary products, a rise in prices with an associated limitation of purchasing power and hardship.

    I don't think our understanding of the complex and dynamic systems we are trying to model is advanced enough to give more than a solid maybe as an answer.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: interest and growth is not related. get this right.
      • Feb 5 2013: I am referring to a debt based monetary system that requires economic growth to service debt. In the long term, this requires a population growth (somewhere in the world) to expand production to meet the debt servicing obligations.
        If I can quote from the web site "Positive Money" (

        One of the greatest pressures being placed on the environment today is due to the need to sustain the required economic growth that ensures the stable functioning of our current economic system. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution economic growth has been accompanied by increased resource use and pollution as well as more general environmental destruction.
        One of the fundamental system drivers that force economic growth on us is the debt based money system. Under this system debt is not a choice – for there to be money, there has to be debt. The system is based on ensuring access to credit (i.e. debt) for government, business and individuals, who all borrow money from the banks. Currently the total debt owed to banks stands at £2.1 trillion. In order for a business or an individual to borrow they are required to present either collateral or evidence of future earnings.
        To then service that debt requires future earnings over and above what is required merely to continue the existing level of economic activity. So economic growth, often in the form of more debt, must accompany debt service. In addition in order to ensure growth, anytime that the money supply contracts or declines, more borrowing is needed to create the additional money required to service the debt and enable economic growth.
        Herman Daly, the eminent economist and environmentalist, expressed this perfectly when he said that:
        We are accumulating more and more debt to finance economic growth, and we need more future growth to repay the debt
        Herman Daly

        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: i'm still not sure what you are referring to. i heard the term "debt based" to describe fractional reserve and the money creation process of central banks. but it has nothing to do with growth. or you refer to the fact that governments empty their credit cards, do not plan to pay it back, and hope to grow out the interest servicing costs. these are two independent concepts, and i agree that both are terrible.

          however, none of these are related to loan interest rates. even if we had solid hard money, and fiscal prudence, interest rate would still exist. and vice versa, interest rates do not cause new money creation. just for example, the problem today is that we have too low interest rates. they are artificially lowered by central banks.

          and none of these are related to economic growth. governments promise growth, but that's it. they can't deliver, they are just riding the wave, if there happens to be a wave. currently, there is not. but that does not stop governments to borrow and to inflate. another "sorta" relation would be that inflation sometimes can be disguised as growth. but of course it is not growth in the sense of total produced stuff. it is only nominal, a boom that bursts sooner or later.

          economy can be built on solid foundation. we could have hard money, we could have balanced budgets, we could have free and honest banking system. we could have unlimited growth in the quality of life. and to a certain limit, we can support much more people on this planet. all it takes is technology. and to have technology, all it takes is time and effort.
      • Feb 5 2013: A debt based monetary system just means that money comes into existance with the issuing of credit and the acceptance of that credit to for a debt.
        Fractional reserve banking is just a simplistic ponzi scheme and we can ignore it for now.
        Interest rates require that the debt plus a little bit extra is paid back to the lender to discharge the debt. This is usually done by charging more for the product and reducing profit, becoming more efficient or assuming more debt.
        Eventually you will run out of efficiencies and expansion is required. When you think about it, how many business say "we are just the right size and don't want to grow" There is always the desire to open a branch in a new city, franchise, expand the current plant, etc.
        This type of expansion requires more workers to man the new business ventures which is reflected in population growth.
        I don't mean anything that. Perhaps its wrong but I have always thought that in the long term, interest payments on debt would always drive up population but not by any funtional relationship (i.e. interest rates go down, the population falls, etc). Its just that the existance of interest drives population growth, either through fertility rates or by immigration.
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: so you were talking about the fractional reserve. it is a legalized scam, no arguing here.

          but interest rates mean nothing you imply. it is easy to simply simulate it with gold coins and imaginary participants, and you can see that it is all perfectly balanced and round.

          of course there are many implications, for one, there has to be losses. some people will lose some, in order for others to earn more. all this, of course, is in money turns, because everyone wins additionally as the economy produces more stuff, so everything becomes cheaper.

          also the desire to expand does not mean that everyone expands. some firms want to expand, but they are not able to, and shrink. the total number of employees, obviously, will not grow. you make the mistake to look only the successful companies, and overlook the failing ones.

          it is advisable to look from the other side. we have X people willing to work, and let's assume that this number slowly increase due to population growth, and slowly decrease due to increased demand for leisure. the result is some slow time variation of X. meanwhile, standing capital grows, thus the product of one work hour grows, thus the consumable product per capita grows. and within these boundaries, we have the "creative destruction", that is, jobs, companies, products constantly appearing and disappearing.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2013: If the nation is financed by Internal Revenue it is.
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: It depends on the country. Some nations need more people to work on the abundant natural resources; while some nations already have too many mouths to feed, so to speak.
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: in general yes, in a slow pace, as it increases the possibilities for division of labor. with some correction: it is not country-wide, it should be looked worldwide.
  • Feb 3 2013: Kipling said it best. immense natural resources made Americans rich. Now our leadership are innumerate fools. This isn't the nineteenth century anymore.