Population explosion - or is it implosion?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Felch X


You're right. Our theories date back to the 18th century. Your theories date back to the 19th century. It just so happens that our theories actually work, and capitalism continues to thrive, while communism has gone the way of the condor, existing only in isolated pockets.

I'm talking about Keynes here, not Marx. If you think that anyone believes in equilibrium economics then can you tell me why everyone uses monetary policy?

[Shi Huangdi]

Many economists today disagree with Keynes now and instead agree with Supply Side or neo-classical theory. Sticky Wages can keep prices up for awhile, but during certain times of retraction they can fall. They did fall during the great depression, and they can fall when under stiff pressure of competition. Moreover, when the population falls, that tends to put a corresponding leftward pressure on the AS curve anyway as there is less population then.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Many economists today disagree with Keynes now and instead agree with Supply Side or neo-classical theory. Sticky Wages can keep prices up for awhile, but during certain times of retraction they can fall. They did fall during the great depression, and they can fall when under stiff pressure of competition. Moreover, when the population falls, that tends to put a corresponding leftward pressure on the AS curve anyway as there is less population then.

This is nonsense. You are talking about politicians and obscure economists that aren't taken seriously. There is one particular price that I'm talking about, that's wages. Wages didn't fall during the depression. That's why there was unemployment. Wages don't fall, businesses just close down and put everyone out of work. Shi, your being ridiculous by saying that economists believe in self-correcting markets. It's just rhetoric to argue for political policies to favor the rich. It's crap.

[mactbone]

Wages do fall. Why are companies hiring younger people for less money? Simple example - in the NFL it is acceptable to release older players who have either higher minimum salaries (veterancy) or demand too much and draft a young player who will play for less money. This happens in the corporate world as well.

[Dauphin]

That is a false comparison. You have to compare like with like I would think.

i.e are NFL starting salaries increasing or not?

[Ben Kenobi]

Weren't both the Hutus and the Tutsis mostly Catholic?

Frogger, yes. The predominant religion in Rwanda is Roman Catholicism. No religious division exists between the Hutus and the Tutsis.

Lancer:
Increase Filipino immigration.

Che, and the other commies:

Interesting. We might be in agreement that population declines hurt capitalist economies.

What will we do without an increase in workers and consumers?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Wages do fall. Why are companies hiring younger people for less money? Simple example - in the NFL it is acceptable to release older players who have either higher minimum salaries (veterancy) or demand too much and draft a young player who will play for less money. This happens in the corporate world as well.

Nominal wages no not fall. Real wages can fall over time. We are talking about the case in the short run where there is a shortfall in demand which cuts into profits. Instead of paying their employees less companies lay people off. In fact, with the minimum wage laws in every developed country it would be illegal to pay many of the people less money.

As far as firing people who are getting paid more than another person would for doing an equal job, that is something different. That is just a correction that a company makes when they realize that they can hire someone better. This is completely independent of a decrease in demand for their product.

[mactbone]

Every year the minimum for rookies increases, from NFLPA.org(the NFL player's association)-

Minimum Salaries
Minimum salaries will no longer be increased each year by the percentage increase in DGR to a maximum of 10%. Instead, Paragraph 5 Minimum Salaries are set at the following specific amounts for the years indicated ($ in 000's):

Credited Seasons
||||||2002 |2003 |2004 |2005 |2006 |2007
0 |225 |225 |230 |230 |235 |235
1 |300 |300 |305 |305 |310 |310
2 |375 |375 |380 |380 |385 |385
3 |450 |450 |455 |455 |460 |460
4-6 |525 |530 |535 |540 |545 |545
7-9 |650 |655 |660 |665 |670 |670
10+ |750 |755 |760 |765 |770 |770

This is also happening in the corporate world. Say I have an employee who's been here 20 years, because of those years the market dictates that I pay him for his experience (the same as the NFL) but I realize that I can hire a young graduate (rookie) for less even though they can perform the same job (linebacker). Now, in the short term I will be paying less and there may be a short drop off in production (young players take time to adjust) but it is more cost-effective to pay someone less for a slight reduction which will soon not be an issue as the new employee gains experience.

I'll go look for a news article I saw.

[DuncanK]

MacT,

Companies are always reevaluating their employee costs. Occasionally they will see an opportunity to fire a particular employee because their performance is not as good as it used to be, and hire someone else. That's completely different from what we are talking about.

[St Leo]

We call it a recession.

No, you call it a Republican government. Of course, Libertarians would cause the free market to collapse so fast that you wouldn't have time to say "laissez faire".

[mactbone]

I'll try and find a regular news source. This one has been accurate about everything I've seen, but I understand your need for the news to come from a major outlet.

ProFootball.com

AGE THE NEXT HOT ISSUE?

As the NFL focuses more heavily upon addressing criticism resulting from the historic absence of minorities in key coaching and front-office positions, there's a new concern that slowly is emerging in league circles.

Specifically, an increasing number of white, middle-aged assistants, scouts, and other team personnel worry that, as teams attempt to hire more African-Americans and to save money by bringing on younger (i.e., cheaper) employees, older staffers might be left standing around when the music stops.

The phenomenon is common throughout corporate America. An employee is hired young, and the boss gives him a raise every year, in order to keep him happy.

Twenty years or so later, the boss realizes that those annual raises have resulted in a fortysomething worker who can be replaced with a newbie, at half the expense.

Federal law prohibits discrimination against employees over the age of 40, and many states have similar protections against discrimination on the basis of age. Still, age discrimination remains a real problem throughout America, especially as companies continue to obsess over strategies for cutting costs.

As a practical matter, we doubt that there will be much of an outcry for change in this regard -- unless Matlock and the old dude from Picket Fences decide to start sending some rambling Grampa Simpson letters to the league office. Without someone who's sufficiently motivated to expose this problem as it grows, it'll most likely be ignored.

[Richard Bruns]

Much to think about here. The commies have made many good points, but I still think their conclusions are wrong. Their assumption is that a fall in population will lead to a fall in demand, which will lead to a fall in wages, which will cause demand to fall more, etc. However, this assumption is flawed because it does not take demographics into account.

As the population starts to shrink, the proportion of workers to elderly nonworkers grows. The population of pensioners will continue to demand products, and their demand will exist and even grow, no matter what the wage and employment situation is. In addition to the basic goods and services that anybody demands, the demand for more and better health care will continue to increase, easily offsetting the increase in productivity.

It has long been known that taxes must increase in order to support this growing population of nonworking pensioners. An ever greater proportion of the output of workers and companies will be redistributed by the government. This means that the productivity and efficiency gains inherent in technological growth and the system of capitalism will not lead to an excess of supply as long as pensioners are given enough money to suppory their lifestyle.

Basically, a declining population trend will result in demand increasing and supply decreasing, as the proportion of workers to nonworkers decreases. Ironically, socialistic government pension systems may be the just thing that saves capitalism from collapse.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Much to think about here. The commies have made many good points, but I still think their conclusions are wrong. Their assumption is that a fall in population will lead to a fall in demand, which will lead to a fall in wages, which will cause demand to fall more, etc. However, this assumption is flawed because it does not take demographics into account.

A fall in population (forgetting demographic) also leads to a fall in the available workforce. With a smaller workforce won't labour demand increase, and so wages not fall?

[Urban Ranger]

A socialistic healthcare system in a capitalist society is not going to work with the working population declining contiuously while the population of pensioners keeps rising. The only exception will be if the rise in productivity more than negates the decline in workers. That is a very big if, however.

It seems that the quantity of life (e.g toys, etc.) will decrease as population decreases. I do not see retirees demand more services and products than before they retire. On the whole, they are going to consume less since they will be spending much time at home or in the nearby community.


BD,

"Many economists today disagree with Keynes now and instead agree with Supply Side or neo-classical theory."

This doesn't matter. As the joke goes if you ask ten economists you will get ten answers. Another factor you need to consider is the fundamentals of classic economic theory were formulated in a time where there wasn't an enormous concentration in capital, when mobility was low and when the closing of a company didn't have a major impact on the society as a whole.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This doesn't matter. As the joke goes if you ask ten economists you will get ten answers.

Eleven answers.