A big population can be a strength if it's managed properly, in a way that encourages the people in the workforce to be productive, to open businesses, to innovate, and to pay taxes. A small population can be a weakness if a country is in a politically unstable reagion/situation (because bigger neighbors can be a real threat to reckon with) and also, again, if it's not managed properly. There are prosperous nations with big and small populations, big and small territories.
I think overpopulation is a real problem in some countries, and so is underpopulation, but overall the amount of people does not determine the economic success.
Topic: Population: Economic strength or weakness - page 8. (Read 1682 times)
It could be a strength or a weakness . It is determined by the environment. China is one of the most populous countries on earth yet technologically they are ahead, they don suffer from hunger or starvation. They have a very low crime rate and have managed to fight off corruption in their country. The same thing cannot be said of India for instance. India still struggles with systematic corruption, pollution and inability to Carter for the needs of her citizenry. I think that China is the model country for other countries who need to learn about population growth and expansion can take a lead from.
I do not think we can use China as a model for the management of their population, their one child policy lead to tens of millions of forced abortions and sterilizations, there is also an imbalance of men and women as Chinese families traditionally prefer men over women, and finally now the Chinese government is realizing they may not have enough young workers to fuel their economic growth, this means the problems regarding its demographics are even bigger at China than in most western countries. 
It could be a strength or a weakness . It is determined by the environment. China is one of the most populous countries on earth yet technologically they are ahead, they don suffer from hunger or starvation. They have a very low crime rate and have managed to fight off corruption in their country. The same thing cannot be said of India for instance. India still struggles with systematic corruption, pollution and inability to Carter for the needs of her citizenry. I think that China is the model country for other countries who need to learn about population growth and expansion can take a lead from.
Instead of environment I'd say it's the government. Of course a lot of factors affects the outcome of whether or not population can affect a country positively or negatively. However, most of these factors are under the decision and leadership of the government.
It could be a strength or a weakness . It is determined by the environment. China is one of the most populous countries on earth yet technologically they are ahead, they don suffer from hunger or starvation. They have a very low crime rate and have managed to fight off corruption in their country. The same thing cannot be said of India for instance. India still struggles with systematic corruption, pollution and inability to Carter for the needs of her citizenry. I think that China is the model country for other countries who need to learn about population growth and expansion can take a lead from.
One of the reason while some of the over populated countries are under developed is as result of lack of management and unemployment to the nation, because they can not control the numbers of individuals living in their environment per say, so I believe that many people who have over population always have inflation and what means a country not have not developed is based on the economy of the country.
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.
Bro, you got it right. That enormous population thing hasn't favoured Africa because of selfish leadership. In China, the reverse is the case. The Chinese can produce and consume what they've and still survive. Corruption is at its lowest ebb in China and that has helped them to effectively manage themselves. Africa is cursed (yes, I make bold to say that) with bad leadership. The enormous population, especially in my country has continually made things deplorable as the scarce infrastructure is getting more scarce by each passing day.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.
Finding my country on the number 6 spot makes me feel bad. Sadly, there's nothing anyone can do. That's how things are. Nigeria has enormous resources, both in manpower and natural endowment. Regrettably, disastrous leadership has perpetually kept the country backwards.
snip
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?
limiting the birth rate will only worsen the situation of the country's population in the future, just look at how Japan and Singapore have suppressed birth rates, currently their country lacks productive age, this is what encourages developed countries that are underpopulated to make it easier for citizens of productive age who come from other countries to enter their country and provide decent and well-paid jobs.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?
Instead of reducing birth rates, what governments in developed countries should do is spread their population evenly and encourage productive-age citizens to rebuild cities that have begun to be abandoned, large populations never destroy a country, instead it adds to the strength of the country.
I don't want to make an excuse because I am from a country that I believe is overpopulated although families are starting to limit their number of children, especially in the mid-level and the professionals.
The government has the biggest role in terms of overpopulation and sparsely populated countries. It would be easier to manage underpopulated rather than overpopulated. In an underpopulated country, resources are too much which means employment is not a problem and people will be earning bigger since their demand is higher. Higher income means high the government will also have more funds from taxation and less problem of poverty. This also means the ability to get better deals from overpopulated countries that do not have a lot to offer rather than manpower and cheap labor.
The government has the biggest role in terms of overpopulation and sparsely populated countries. It would be easier to manage underpopulated rather than overpopulated. In an underpopulated country, resources are too much which means employment is not a problem and people will be earning bigger since their demand is higher. Higher income means high the government will also have more funds from taxation and less problem of poverty. This also means the ability to get better deals from overpopulated countries that do not have a lot to offer rather than manpower and cheap labor.
.
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?
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?
It seems to me that in the article the author confuses cause and effect. In countries with poor living conditions (such as Africa or Pakistan, or in some areas of large countries (India or China), a large population is a consequence of a poor standard of living, and not vice versa. By nature, this is a law that makes it so that at least someone survives in bad conditions, it is necessary that many children are born. Unfortunately, not everyone will survive, but there will be living ones who will continue the race.
Concerning the fact that such countries have an impact on large countries: in poor countries, cheap labor is available. This is probably the only way they affect developing countries.
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?
In a poor country, overpopulation is a big problem, but for a rich country, it is more beneficial. If population can be converted into manpower then surely more population is the wealth of the country. I think the population in developing countries is not decreasing but it is increasing exponentially. On the other hand, the population growth rate in developed countries is decreasing drastically. Due to which developed countries are able to fulfill their needs in underdeveloped countries. I think there is no chance of population reduction in underdeveloped countries because they don't have proper idea about birth control. They do not get better idea about family planning. Due to various reasons, the population in the underdeveloped countries increases drastically. Peasants usually have many children - someone has to work in the fields. But today's children don't want to work in the fields, they want to go to the city. There are not so many jobs in the city, and entrepreneurs like to use cheap migrants. So there is a situation where a large population is a big problem. There are jobs, but few indigenous people want to work in hard jobs, and the easy jobs quickly run out
That’s a crude way to put it but you’ve got a point there. A lot of cases, people with low to zero income levels usually end up having more children they could possibly cater for.
There are not many jobs around for unskilled workers and a whole bunch of those peasants you mentioned haven’t got those relevant skills needed by employers.
Talking about migrants and cheap labor; sure, employers like to use migrants cause they’re majorly skilled at the job and are willing to accept less payment for their work.
Having the relevant skills is key here. Indigenous people should also know that.
Having a large population can be both a strength and weakness, depending on the quality of the same. If the population is highly skilled and educated, then it can be an advantage to the country to have such a large population. However, if the population is of low quality, then it can be a burden to have a huge population as the government needs to spend a lot of resources on education, employment and medical care. African nations do have a rapidly growing population, but they are in poverty because the population is not sufficiently skilled.
Yes, population affects economics. However, blaming population for economic issues is like painting a masterpiece with one hue. Its complex. Imagine improving governance, economic diversity, and resource allocation in poor nations. Overpopulation becomes beneficial. These nations could lead global innovation and growth.
Reducing population in underdeveloped nations may motivate rich nations to invest in sustainable solutions. Better automation, population upskilling, and immigration policy are options. A win-win.
Reducing population in underdeveloped nations may motivate rich nations to invest in sustainable solutions. Better automation, population upskilling, and immigration policy are options. A win-win.
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?
China is the most populated country in the world, is it underdeveloped? No, but it is one of the most developed countries in the world as of today, so the argument of a country being underdeveloped because of its population is totally baseless because we have a lot of examples of places that are overly populated but are still very much developed and are developing even more as the time goes, so economists that believe in this need to understand that this isn't correct.I totally agree that the reason why a country stays underdeveloped is because of a lack of proper governance and usage of available resources, when a country struggles to develop at a good pace even if it has enough resources and minerals and stuff, it is only because there is corruption and the government isn't up to the task.
The developed nations may have to rely more on AI, automation, innovation and immigration to meet their labor demands. They may also have to offer more incentives and benefits to attract and retain workers from other countries. They may also have to reconsider their trade policies and partnerships with these developing nations to ensure fair and mutually beneficial exchanges.
I think populations is not a problem for country which has a lot natural resources. country like Japan or Korea maybe need to reduce their population because their country natural resources is not so much, the price of food there also expensive. but as long as the people is productive and contribute to the GDP I think big population is not a problem. Today we have internet, bitcoin, youtube, tiktok, microstock and etc that ease people to earn money from internet. by this way their purchasing power will increase so they can import some goods that they need.
This is a very interesting and complex issue...
I am lucky enough to work in both worlds as part of my job, so I see the consequences of over and under population on a daily basis. I think over population can be managed, if you have a good government ....but in most 3rd world countries, that is not the case.
Take China for example and compare them to India..... In China you have a country with the second largest population in the world and their government are strict and less corrupt than other governments in third world countries. India have a typical third world government, where corruption and mismanagement are part of their daily lives...and with the world's biggest population... poverty and suffering are part of their lives.
I am lucky enough to work in both worlds as part of my job, so I see the consequences of over and under population on a daily basis. I think over population can be managed, if you have a good government ....but in most 3rd world countries, that is not the case.
Take China for example and compare them to India..... In China you have a country with the second largest population in the world and their government are strict and less corrupt than other governments in third world countries. India have a typical third world government, where corruption and mismanagement are part of their daily lives...and with the world's biggest population... poverty and suffering are part of their lives.
As the population increases, the demand for goods and services will increase and the market size will continue to increase in the days to come.
The magnitude of market demand is indeed substantial, but it all hinges on the prevailing conditions of governance and politics at that time. Can the supply adequately meet all existing demands at the most favorable price? Or will scarcity ensue, driving up prices and inflicting hardship upon the populace?Therefore, there is no definite guarantee that a large population will automatically translate into a promising market. If a significant portion of the population possesses strong human capital, I believe that the country would find it easier to progress, and poverty could be alleviated through the equitable development of human resources.
As the population increases, the demand for goods and services will increase and the market size will continue to increase in the days to come. An open environment exists in today's world to benefit from overpopulation or to accept the ill effects of overpopulation. The government has to pay attention to its policies and activities if it wants to make a profit. Careless vision will bring the evil of overpopulation a large part of the production comes from micro and small and medium industries. The government should emphasize on investment in this industry. Increasing investment here can be a good option for domestic employment generation in the future.
For example in China, which has the largest population in the world, but they have an economy that counts for the world, there are almost no countries that do not use products from China. it's different in India which also has the largest population after China, from a developing country to finally being able to move to a developed country where the government can take advantage of the advantages of existing human resources, but what needs to be watched out for is the political role that feels like it wants to rule
China implemented strict population control policies from 1970s onward and as a result they were able to put more resources into education and healthcare. This is the difference between India and China. China has eradicated extreme poverty, and the per capita income is at least 3 times higher than that of India. And in India, the population still depends on freebies and only around 1.2% of the population pays income tax. With one-third of the area of China, India still has more people living on its land compared to its Northern neighbor.
Jump to: