Topic: Population: Economic strength or weakness - page 12. (Read 1682 times)

Developed countries import labor from outside the country for what they think is cheap, but for migrants who find it difficult to get a job in their country, this is a blessing. when a country with a large population suppresses the birth rate, I think there are still many ways to get workers, of course if there are labor difficulties then they will increase wages, and I think this will not be a problem, because not all countries will become developed countries, and of course the development of robotic machines will reduce the need for human labor

The government plays a crucial role in maximizing a country's population to ensure optimal productivity. When comparing countries like China and Indonesia, both of which have large populations, the stark differences in their types of governance have a significant impact.

Indonesia ranks as the 30th most corrupt country, while China boasts an exceptionally low corruption rate. This disparity can be attributed to the respective government systems in each country. We are aware that both nations have high populations, with Indonesia having a population of 273.8 million and China reaching 1.412 billion (as of 2021).

In China, the anti-corruption movement began in 2013, with the implementation of the death penalty for anyone found guilty of corruption. In contrast, in Indonesia, even the lowest-ranking government officials can engage in corruption without consequences, to the point where it has become normalized. The disparity in the severity of punishments significantly influences the human resources of each country. A government's lack of firmness in tackling corruption, which leads to high corruption rates, hinders a nation's progress.

I believe that population is not the primary determinant of a country's advancement. It truly depends on the governance of the respective nation.

I wouldn't agree that it doesn't work if it can be implemented exactly as intended, and China's One-child policy is a prime example that such a thing is possible. Despite all the controversy surrounding the policy, it is estimated that from 1979 to 2015, about 400 million less children were born in China due to the measure.

I think some African countries should definitely do something about curbing the growth of their population, because it is no longer just their problem, but also a problem of other countries that are facing an increasing number of migrants from these countries. Of course, some other countries such as India have the same problem, and they are trying to solve this by exporting their cheap labor force to Western markets, where this same labor force brings down labor prices and forces the local population to migrate.

However, it is difficult to understand people who can not feed even two children, and at the same time have three times more, which is again a consequence of not using contraceptives and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

The factors that caused this to happen, were definitely due to the unorganized government system in various sectors. Such is the case in the education sector and in the employment sector. These sectors are a problem in every country that has a large population or a small population. Because every year there are many school children or students who have graduated from their university or school and surely all these students will be looking for work. But the problem is, vacancies or jobs do not increase significantly every year. Coupled with the scientific quality or skills of the graduating students, most of them have less qualified scientific quality.
So automatically unemployment every year will increase and continue to increase. In fact, if the government can create jobs and can manage all the education systems well, surely these student graduates will be good for the economy of every citizen and the country's economy.

So in essence, whether it's a small population or a large population, if the government can manage and maximize the potential of its population, and can maximize the natural resources of the country well. Of course it can produce a developed and prosperous country.

From my own point of view on this discussion, over population starts from when the government is corrupt and cares less about the citizens. The government will only create a means to steal and divert public funds that is suppose to be used to enhance the educational sector and the health sector into his pocket. Not treating the important issues that can tackle poverty. Before, you will know it,when government is not handling his responsibilities, citizens will have no hope as they will be giving birth in poverty and suffering and their will be no money to take care of their families. There are so many countries in Africa that has rich abundant resources but their leaders are daft and don't have any view of using this resource to upgrade the country economy status. Such country is Nigeria. Wrong leaders is a barrier to a good and a stable economy.

It depends on its Government.

A big population could generate a lot of money if the Government will give them a lot of opportunities to earn money. Manpower plays a huge role on developing a certain country, china for example. On the other side, if the government would just neglect those people that are poor and only earning a little money on side hustle, population would only increase in a rapid phase because they'll just focus on making babies since they have nothing to do in their home.

The answer is short, quality over quantity.

Most of citizen in overpopulated country is no brainer because they're not competitive people and think making a baby is an investment. Most of them earn low or average salary and they're always lack of money, that's why the government force them to reduce the population.

However most of citizen in underpopulated country is educated because they're very competitive people and worried if their wealth aren't enough to cover their baby needs. Most of them earn at least minimum to high salary, since many company lack of workers and they willing to pay high, the government force them to increase the population.

I believe some people tend to look at one point of view and believe that is true, and then ignore or try to build arguments to prove the other point of view is wrong, hence why the debate that you saw happened. There is generally no right answer since context will always matter. At the end of the day, I guess most of us know that the country/government/community itself is the one who will likely decide whether their population is going to be a problem or not.

Are you talking about countries like Japan? Maybe they can change their work culture, encourage people to get married, accept immigration from other countries as long as they are skillful, and so on. The point is they can always think of a solution based on their condition. You can't just copy and paste what works in one country to another one, especially if they are culturally different.

Though I think it will depends on so many factors like the nutrition and education level of the people, population is more of strength rather than weakness, the top 2 of the largest economy in the world is USA and China, based on this site. Both country is also on the top 3 most populated country. based on this site. That shouldn't be a coincident.

In short I think more population meaning more worker to produce more goods, and more consumers to attract investors.

The term "overpopulation" is used wrongly sometimes.
If the country has enough resources and enough fertile land to feed the huge population, then I wouldn't say that such country is overpopulated.
The problem is the lack of good healthcare and education systems. Education is necessary for creating a disciplined working class and small business. Creating good healthcare and education systems require big investments and most of the underdeveloped countries don't have enough capital. The lack of capital is a bigger problem than the big population. Having lots of young people is good for the future of the country, but those young people have to be educated.

There is one big factor that can change everything about the theory mentioned above. The reason why you see differences between the nations as per their population and economic growth success or unsuccess lies within the "literacy" rate of that particular nation.

Some nations are highly developed, they have 100% literacy rate and also they have thin population but they would always contribute more to the economy. Yes this is true because all of the literate people know value of contributing to the society or how to overcome the so called poverty line.

However, if you increase the population but not the literacy rate within the country then it could be disastrous. For example, country where literacy is less, but population is too much then they will have more debts than contribution. Since they will have less employment, thus it will contribute to unskilled workers and hence cheap wagers, cheap economy. That is how I look at the current economic ratio as compared to the population of that country.

What is needed is to create Attraction by itself, many will come. Admittedly, more or less the population has an influence because there you can see how many potential births there are with the number of people who will adopt them.

China and India are most populous countries in the world and are one of big global powers. Clearly they both have utilised there population as there strength rather then a weakness. Also there are countries like Switzerland,  who have very small population still they are very much developed. So population alone is not a criteria for success or failure. You need to have a road map about how to proceed in right direction.

The population could be a blessing or a curse. This depends on the leaders of the country we are talking about and the people therein.

If policies are not good enough, the higher the population, the more devasting it would be. Another thing about the population is about those people that form the population (the masses), if they are nonentities, then there is nothing much positive that would come out of it.

Forget about increasing or reducing the population, it doesn't work, they are just litmus test as far as I'm concerned and it has different results per country. Once the foundation/system is wrong, it's a problem, the country can't get it right with either increased or reduced population.

We have had different analyses about the implication of population on the economy of a nation. Some economists will argue that the reason for the underdevelopment of most countries is because of overpopulation. Hence they are advised to cut down the population through diverse means like birth control and so on. In other countries, economists are also predicting economic woes because of underpopulation. These nations have been advised to increase the birth rate through diverse means. Some nations are giving citizens diverse welfare packages to increase the number of children they have. Some are encouraging immigration to fill the gaps created by the labor shortages.

A close look at this situation shows that many of these overpopulated nations mostly in Africa and Asia are underdeveloped. While these underpopulated nations are economically buoyant. I think the reason for the poverty of these developing nations is not the population but bad governance and the inability to maximize and distribute available resources equally.  We cannot deny the fact that these overpopulated nations are economically important to these developed nations in terms of human resources. And they contribute immensely to the development of these first-world nations in terms of cheap labour.

How do you think these developed nations will fill vacancies in their nations and get cheap labor if the population of these developing nations is reduced?