Topic: Population: Economic strength or weakness - page 2. (Read 1787 times)

The thing is, manpower is useless without fostering. That's why we have countries with overly-high population counts but when you look at them economically you'd realize that they are underdeveloped. People will work if they are taught how to work, and are given the opportunity to work without having to worry about anything else. Iceland is a good example of a country where the population is in complete harmony with the level of expertise that the people have, that's why they are one of the most economically-advanced country on the planet as we speak.

Population isn't the solution or the problem, with right care and fostering it could be the stepping stone to find the solution that we're looking for economically. Let it rot by itself and it will be your country's downfall.

The abundance of human resources or workers sometimes causes companies in a country to set salaries that are not too high or lower. Even though the government has set a minimum salary for a company for its employees. But it turns out that there are still many large companies that actually pay their employees quite low, below the minimum salary standard in that country. And the workers can't do anything. They cannot demand a salary increase. Because if they do, they will be expelled and replaced by other people who are already queuing to work at the company.

The problem of population and economic power is indeed a topic that looks easy, but this is a topic that is more difficult than it seems. Because the situation and conditions are different in every country in the world. Even in the Arabian plains, several countries with high population growth are still able to maintain their economies quite well and stable. But other countries that are still in the Arabian plains and have high population growth apparently have quite difficult economic problems. So I think the problem is not about how the population grows. But what about the way the government works? And this is actually also influenced by how honest a government is in managing the country.

massive population is good for macroeconomic if taken advantage properly but hell for the citizens themselve, the abundance of laber like have been mentioned gonna results in lower salary, because there are many replacement for you in your jobs the company doesn't even need to sweat to find the workforce replacement.
such thing can only be prevented by having so many jobs like having good infrastructure to produce overseas goods from foreign countries, otherwise if there are job sufficient jobs for the population it will increase poverty and criminality.
certainly in my opinion it could be a double edged sword depends on the government to content against the challenge, whether they can successfully find some workaround or instead, make things worse.

What you've said is right, but in reality this isn't possible beyond certain limit. For that purpose limiting the population is the only choice. Right now India have got the highest number of young population, but the government isn't good enough to support or provide opportunities. When this is the reality better choice is to limit the population. China had been doing it for a long, the young population have got reduced and now it can't give the support to every person and for this reason they've come with different population control plans which is really good and India will soon follow it.

The population of a country is not always a headache for a state rather it will give huge benefits. let's take the example of China, it's the most populated country in the world but still, its economy is stable not only stable but is in competition with the superpowers. The more the population the more will be the economic strength. This shows that population does not negatively affect a country's poverty. This population is not only beneficial for itself but for other country also like the developed country need labor from the developing country and in return these overpopulated or simply developing country needs technologies and much more if the developing country reduces the population then it consequences on the developed countries will be bad and they need to find another way like making robots, offering for the immigrants, increase the productivity of their workers. This will not increase their productivity but at the same time will create a headache like the immigrants create political and social issues, robots lead to job loss of humans and increasing productivity of their workers need huge investment in their training. So it is necessary to settle the things between these two classes developing and developed if they reduce the population it will create tension for them as well as for the developed one also.

The two countries were indeed well populated, but reducing the number of children being born is not the perfect solution to an economic development strategies, we need to plan ahead towards what we have and create enough capacity that cam accommodate everyone into participating in one or two economical activities that will lead to their sustainability, a good example is China, they are well populated and still yet one of the developed countries in the world.

Large countries with the largest human population even though they have been strong in all respects but poverty will never disappear but this figure is not large when the central government is able to carry out well as its duties but the country will be considered strong in the eyes of the world if they succeed in developing.

China is undoubtedly capable of producing goods for export to the whole world so because of the many human resources, they are able to produce a good economy from strong hard work and are able to supply any goods to any country including my own country now many goods are imported from China.
I said about poverty will never disappear, every country must have it, it's just that maybe the numbers are small and not comparable to what they achieve from the results of all the people who are their resources.

This situation has another option that can be considered - a population that is growing with migrants.
This problem, as it seems to me, is more complicated. And its essence is that, as the practice of the EU, which decided to play the game of "tolerance and loyalty", shows, most of these migrants are not productive and not useful to the economy. Most of them just receive benefits and do not produce anything.
And benefits do not come out of thin air, they are all TAXES of the local population. In fact, they support thousands and hundreds of thousands of migrants at their own expense. And this means that either the social and economic motivation of the local population decreases, or the tax pressure on the working part of the population increases, which is also negative. And if you look at some EU countries, migrants already make up a HUGE share of the population there, which means that the trends will only worsen. It seems to me that such countries should introduce legislation protecting the local population and remove ultra-loyal conditions for accepting migrants. For example, they are given 3-6 months to learn the laws and basic knowledge of the state language. Adult family members should be officially employed in jobs offered by social services. Children are obliged to attend public kindergartens/schools in compliance with local laws and regulations. Conditions are not met - glad to have met you, goodbye, and permanently banned from entering the country/EC.....
Otherwise the EU will soon burst from social burden, justified claims of the local population, social explosions and riots

In my view, this isn't about monetizing a large population's capacity to purchase items, but rather, it's about the mindset of the population. A smaller population with a strong human resource base can make a more significant and positive contribution compared to a larger population with lower human resource quality. We can actually discuss the productivity of the population more than their consumption patterns.

Let's reconsider the idea of monetizing the domestic population to buy goods or exporting products to bring money into the country. Upon closer examination, it's better to be a producer rather than focusing on being a consumer. In doing so, the national income will rise, and the welfare of the society will improve.

With the large population of these two countries, the economic chain will continue to run because everyone definitely needs the food they buy every day, so that food and clothing makers will continue to run more stably. Because each of them also has to work in order to earn money for their own needs, so the large number of people living in these two countries will certainly make the country's economic turnover continue to increase quite well. And it will also be easier for anyone to take advantage of jobs that can make more money.

Population is inversely proportional to economic strength and literally rate is also depend on economic strength . American countries are economic strong and this strength is because of sexual knowledge.In European countries , people are highly  educated is this perspective and they know how to control our expenses . In these countries , live in relationship system is common and they enjoy their life without signing in paper after which male an female engage for the whole in Muslims.In Eastern Muslims ,this trend is common and they say that we are husband and wife after signing on this paper and we will live and die together.And in Muslim society , Women can't say no to sex after marriage .That's what there is more poverty in Eastern countries as comparison to Western countries.People should aware of sexual knowledge if any country want to be developed.

You are right. Because high poverty rates are still more common in countries that have high population levels. In essence, all countries have their own problems, whether they are countries that have the highest population levels or countries that have very small populations.

Even in Japan, where the rate of population increase is very low, it actually also has a poverty problem. It's just that it's not as much as in developing countries. There is an area in Japan that is inhabited by people who are not financially good. Many even sleep on the streets.
In fact, many Japanese people don't want to get married and have children because they are too worried about the economy. So a baby recession occurs there.

The larger the population, the more complex the characteristics and traits of the society become. This, of course, presents a unique challenge for governments aiming to serve as a central authority for a cohesive citizenry. If a government fails to earn the respect and trust of its people, poverty rates are likely to remain high as a consequence.

China serves as a successful example of implementing a strong work ethic, and India seems to be progressing toward emulating what China has achieved. However, it's important to recognize that neither of these countries has been entirely successful in providing for all their citizens. Both nations still have significant pockets of severe poverty, so perfection cannot be claimed. Nevertheless, China and India serve as good examples for governing countries with high populations.

It is true that sometimes abundant human resources due to a large population in a country sometimes have a positive impact on a country's economy. Especially if the country is led by a government that is able to manage state finances and the country's natural resources well. Because economic problems actually more often arise as a result of governance that is wrong and not in accordance with what it should be.

Some of the positive things about a large population in a country are

✓ Abundance of Labor (Abundant human resources)
✓ Potential consumers. (There will be no shortage of consumers)
✓ Will trigger more diversity of innovation and creativity.
✓ Abundant human resources will also strengthen military strength because more people will enter the military field.
✓ And others.

It feels like the institution, religious stance and general culture of a country can make a huge difference compared to population. Take for example certain countries that might take the religious viewpoint of everything being a byproduct of "God's will", which is basically an excuse and a cop out for lazy behavior or not questioning different alternatives to a failed action. Science is a leading force that drives forward a lot of innovation, but at times it can be in conflict with certain religious interpretations and stunt growth in such societies. Without science we would not have many of the medical marvels we see today, or things like GPS systems in space which satnav's rely on or even the internet which makes communication so much easier.

China vs India is not exactly an apple to apple comparison. Most of India's land is suitable for agriculture, but in China that is not the case. More than half of the surface area is in the provinces of Xinjiang and Xizang, where the conditions are very arid and not suitable for agriculture. Provinces such as Qinghai, Inner Mongolia and Gansu also have similar climatic conditions. On the other hand, only around 10% of India is arid.

China's population can be misleading. China has over 1.4 billion in population but due to its huge area, it only has 390 population per square miles. Meanwhile, India has 1,130 population per square mile which is nearly three times as many compared to China.

Huge or low population density has its cons and pros. Lower population density countries are less likely to fast-track their resources but unemployment might not be a concern. Whereas huge population density countries if utilized well can quickly exploit resources and drive their economy bigger. Failure to do so can lead to unemployment, very cheap labor, and other issues that reflect a lower GDP per capita.

China and India, which are currently the first and second largest countries, have grown to become world economic powers. In my opinion, population is an economic power because business opportunities certainly require a long process from production to consumption, countries that have large populations are certainly a very useful resource and important for the economy.

overpopulation if not properly managed can lead to so many negative effects on the development of a nation as a result of using the limited available resources for a population that is more than such resources. But in reality, I think if we had good leaders, overpopulation wouldn't even become a subject to be bothered about,

The problem is that we concentrate on the development of a small fraction of our country leaving other part behind and you now find a situation where everybody want to congest the developed part while the local areas have a very small population of people.

If we diversity our developmental strategies and site companies in areas that is less crowded, it would bring development to those part and bring more people in the long run thereby reducing the population of people in urban areas.

I think most of these supposed over populated nations are not all that populated but rather, they are just congested at a particular area.

That is if people are not lazy and are not completely dependent on assistance provided by the government. Human characters are definitely different and there are many people who expect help because the job market is getting more difficult and there are some because they are lazy about working because a lot of help has been given, which makes them even lazier. We often see the character of people who do not have education and are lazy about working and are more likely to expect help from other people although though not all of them have the same character.

But if we ourselves don't want to change our fate by finding solutions, then no matter how much assistance from the government we get, it will never make them live independently and in the end they will also be the ones who live in difficulty. In today's life, if we don't change our fate ourselves, then there is no chance for us to get out of the economic crush.