Topic: Population: Economic strength or weakness - page 10. (Read 1682 times)

I can say under-development, late development, economic struggle, poverty, and anything like that wasn't caused by over population. It's more of a bad governance. I mean pretty bad governance. Corruption is the leading reason for this. The huge number of population the more progressing the country should be, but it turns out to be the other way around. That's what happens when politics becomes a business rather than it's true purpose "public service".
Big business men paying these political leaders straight to their pocket to prevent more investors/business competitors from entering the city, thus preventing employment opportunities as well. That's where massive unemployment was created.


Well, most of the developed countries hired workers from overpopulated nation to do the job that produces more for their country that contributes to their good economic state as well, for a cheaper salary.  While these foreign workers pay taxes to their country which does not translate into something really good economically for many years now. Therefore, these type of countries are really hopeless.

I think it's not really population per se that's the real problem. Those huge economies that lack manpower could import them. Those poor countries with so much labor surplus could export them.

To those who have a small labor force, they could provide incentives to families so that they'll be encouraged to produce offspring. In this way, they will grow less and less dependent on imported labor.

To those who have an oversupply of labor, they could promote policies and programs to attract investors to make potential workers productive. At the same time, they could also prepare them properly so that they have higher value as exports.

This is exactly as only gives what you have and you don't give what you do not have.

A scenero of an overpopulated nation, an economy can still be balanced depending on its governing system with the contributions of it's individuals such as creativities and being productive.

As for the lower rate of population in a developed country, they would only have to create vacancies according to the population. This is why I said a balanced economy and vacancies can still be fixed in an undeveloped overpopulated nation but depending on its governing system and its individual creatives and productions.

If not to be used after production then it's a waste.

A large population will make a country better, although a large population will create other problems. If you look at the Covid 19 pandemic, countries with large populations have better economic stability during the pandemic. The large number of population forces economic activities to continue even during a pandemic and when international markets are almost dead, they can rotate economic activities in their own country.

I think it is difficult for developing countries in Asia to get out of poverty not only because of population problems. This is something more complex and closely related to developed countries. For us Indonesians, it is difficult for our country to progress because there used to be an agreement that did not benefit us and benefited America and the European Union. Our country has many natural resources, but most of them are controlled by overseas company, such as: British Petroleum (BP), Chevron, ExxonMobile, and Petronas. Then the largest gold mine in the world that belongs to us (Freeport) has been controlled by America since the 1960s with a very cheap contract value, and according to Lisa Pease's article published in Probe Magazine, that there is a big conspiracy behind the Freeport agreement: http://www.thesecrettruth.com/freeport-indonesia.htm

And many more. The population problem is a small part of economic power. Economic power is more influenced by developed countries, political stability, security stability, and there are always conspiracies within countries created by invisible forces.

One of the major reasons why these overly populated countries are underdeveloped is because of the economic limitation these developed countries implemented. Like even when a country is capable of creating weapons, they are sanctioned not to do so because developed countries reserve the right to create these weapons.  There are lots of things that normal people do not know, even if the country wanted to do things that can help their country progress, the limitations implemented by powerful countries deprived them of these rights.  So instead underdeveloped country can only serve as laborer while developed country takes the joy of utilizing natural resources and technologies for their own benefit.

That means that the Chinese state has an unusual way of developing its economy through the number of population they have had for a long time in this world, due to the fact that not all countries in the world have been able to do the way that the Chinese state has done in developing their economy within the country. So it must be admitted that China has had a very unique way of developing their economy for a long time and I am also not surprised by this because I see Chinese people with simple appearances but they have more assets in this world.

Maybe they (Chinese citizens) always save 80% of their income to arrange a better future for their children and grandchildren in the future so they will always be stingy on things that are not important in order to be able to save more and not afraid to invest in valuable assets that are well known in this world so that Chinese citizens always look more prosperous when compared to citizens of other countries whose population is not as large as China's. In your opinion, what other influences can affect the country's economy besides the population of the population in the country?

Even if that's not entirely true - but I believe part of it is. Countries with high populations will find it difficult to develop due to limited employment opportunities. The government cannot create jobs for its people so that this country will become a country with a lower economic status compared to others.

Most of them choose to work in other countries regardless of educational background - but it has become a good trend to rid the population of the unemployment rate. Such a country will exist as a third world country among the global community - but the government will not escape its responsibility to provide jobs. For most of the unemployed who are still having trouble finding work.

Population is the important one for the country,it can be used in both positive and negative ways.China is the most populated country in this world,but the Chinese government using the population for their economic development.Some of the under developed countries think the population as the largest burden to them.Because the undeveloped country economy will be worst one compared to the developed countries economy.It’s very important one to use the population to help the country economy development.

Honestly speaking, a population of a country is its strength, but at the same time if you can't pull off the perfect strategy for caring, educating, and empowering the people, they'd become a liability. Look at Iceland and countries with low population for example, they are prospering not because their resources aren't getting dried up easily, for one Iceland is living in the far north which I didn't have to tell you, is comparably shitty when it comes to resources. They succeed because they know how to care for the people and educate them, so when they actually go out there and find work they don't go to other countries to enhance their economy, they work straight for their homeland where they become powerful tools of the workforce and the economy.

Compare that to a country like the Philippines, who's one of the most populated countries in Southeast Asia, they aren't flourishing no matter what, even though resource-wise they are the most rich out of all countries arguably. They stay stuck in the third-world due to poor governance and stone-age outlook at looking out for people. I kid you not when I tell you that they still don't have a concrete subject for Sex education which further increases their rate of teenage pregnancy and HIV cases.

This is quite an interesting matter and it is that the impact that the population of a nation can have on its economy, goes even far beyond the number of people who inhabit it or their demographic relationship. Factors such as the social culture and the level of training of the citizens of a country are highly influential, of course they are aspects that have been forged throughout history and extremely difficult to change, since the collective psychology of habits in the masses is something extremely difficult to control. Beyond this, as you mention, the amount of population is still relevant at an economic level and various predictions point to scenarios that are not very favorable for countries with either overpopulation or, in the opposite scenario, with low population growth. In my opinion, this particular problem can be solved with adequate distribution and fair treatment for the common interests of the nations that have this type of problem through agreements or treaties of a similar nature, which is not an idea very far from what you you expose here.

A country's population has no negative impact on its economy unless the administration of that country does not know how to handle such a population and put it to good use for the country. As you stated above, how would developed nations fill vacancies and obtain inexpensive labour if they do not have people from other countries to fill such positions?
 
The world is changing, and we have seen that computers can now accomplish many things, but this does not negate the need for humans in such sectors.  Many undeveloped countries cannot stop population growth, hence the population will continue to expand. It is now up to each country's government to make good use of its people in order to attain cheap labour.

Agree with you,  population is not the factor to determine country growth. If country has lot of opportunities for labours and country has big resources then I think population play important role in progress of country. India and China are top populated country and both have very good economics status. China is well devolped while India is still in devolping stage.

Any country which government loyals with their citizens and have a broad vision in global trading, technology, Education , resource management and other factor which is beneficial for citizens could devolp their country in advance level. Economic crisis may hit them for some time but it will not last for long time

It is true that in countries with excessive population, if governments fail to effectively create employments for their youths because of short-sighted economic policies and corrupted autocratic system. Un-employed people may involve in criminal activities, a concerning situation may arise resulting in wide-spread hunger and country becomes unliveable. Consequently compelling people to migrate to developed countries for their survival and better prospects.

The large population does not necessarily have to do with economic backwardness, as we can take China as an example of the opposite case, China has the second largest population in the world and despite that it has good economic progress. On the other hand, there are countries that have a very small population and are very developed.

With regard to the question, there can be two ways: the first is good by encouraging citizens to increase offspring and reproduction, and the second is evil by trying to keep poor countries backward and spread wars and chaos so that young people in these countries are forced to emigrate and work in developed countries.

I everything we do, we should always clamour for a balance. Under us not good and neither is over good. But the irony is the question of the yardstick used to measure the under population and the over population.

• Is there a standard set by WHO, which should be regarded as the standard population?
• Do we neasure the population of a country in relative to that of the neighbouring country?
•   Do we measure the population of a country base on the land mass?
• Or we measure based on the percentage annual increase in population

If we have a standard, we can now judge if a country is over populated or under populated.

 Overpopulation is consider as both beneficial as well as disadvantage but it will be due to the circumstances and how the government handle the situations whether he is handling properly or don't provide equal opportunity to them.

 This can be true that larger population can be weakness because those countries which possess over population are underdeveloped while developed countries has controlled population. I think it is something difficult to control population as its not in our hands.

 If population is under control then providing facilities for them is easy and one cannot provide equal opportunities to over population. On other hand overpopulation is also good in term of needs when there is need of young individuals in war or anything other so population is the only way who plays an important role in country's success.

Your solution of exporting worker isn't a viable long-term solution because of brain drain in the developing nation which in turn causes their economy to suffer because there's not enough workforce there that can do specific roles. I don't have much knowledge about nations that are underpopulated, the only one that I know of is Japan and the only solution that I can see in their current situation is for the politicians to stop creating policies that cater more to the aging population and make their immigration more relaxed for people that want to live there.

To my best understanding of this topic, I think that the only way that we can combat the problem of overpopulation or underpopulation is a combination of creating a comprehensive and effective reproductive health, economic and labor policies, I believe that with this 3 factors being focused on, we might be able to alleviate if not solve the pressing concerns of both an overpopulated and underpopulated country. My other solution would be that of promoting works that aren't popular with the current generation which in my country is agriculture sector, putting some workforce in that area and making sure that it's a worthy endeavor getting in that sector will probably help with immigration and labor.

Here we go again, when policy is inside policies, people tend to be confused about what worked. I thought of China while posting, and if anyone says that it's population control that helped China then the person misrepresents it. Any country that gets it right has nothing to fear about population, the management of the situation to their advantage through the right leadership and policies is the answer. This can only explain why countries like Canada are looking for more immigrants, you should know that an increase in population is never a problem, but the system the increased population would meet. If the system is positive, the increased population will help, if it's negative, then it becomes an issue.

As for China, this was what they tried to curb as they weren't getting the system right then while the population was becoming alarming, they averted a disaster. As of today, their big number even helps more since their system is working fine, the population increase would only have been an issue if they follow suit their former bad economic path, and now experts are concerned about looming issues if their population drops much as too much ageing population is never good for an economy.

Finally, what helped China to achieve their present status is mainly attributed to "good leadership and human resources." Also, their weaker currency compared to top countries aids further in the good trade balance which helps their GDP. Their ability to produce substandard products and render services cheaper than many top world countries goes a long way in helping their economy, this is even as their huge number contributed to this success, not otherwise as you indicated.

The strength of each nation depends on many reasons. If we take into account the population, then its contribution to the development of the economic power of the state will determine not the number of the population as a whole, but the number of able-bodied population compared to the disabled. Then the development of industry in the country and the education of the population are of great importance. Indeed, in countries where the majority of the population is employed in agriculture with a predominance of manual labor, even their enormous efforts will be generally ineffective. Therefore, everything in the state must be balanced, depending on the location of the state, climate, soil conditions, historical employment of the population, and many other reasons.

I think population is not a sole factor to determine economic outcome of a country, there are other factors that play crucial role in shaping up the  economic trajectory of a country irrespective of population size, such as good governance, consistent and efficient economic management. Politicians often sell dream of prosperity to win elections, but achieving it requires more than just a large population. It is important for people to work hard with clear goals in mind, develop necessary skills and produce goods those not only meet local demand but also sellable in international markets to earn foreign exchange for the country. China and India serve as good examples that have mastered this strategy, earing foreign exchange through their export oriented  approaches. Achieving prosperity through exportable surplus is a successful economic model that other countries can follow in achieving their economic milestones for sustained growth and development.