Not sure about that one, NPR recently had a report on small curiously named cities in Texas, one city always looked forward to see the big influx of people that comes to a local annual festival, as a business woman reported, for a few days they could pretend they lived in good sized city with lots of traffic making many deals and businesses possible.
Outside the festival, times get tough.
It also increased population, environmental damage, etc. More details are given in my previous posts.
In this case people are coming for a purpose: a local annual festival. They come with money to spend. Also, they are there temporarily.
There used to be a slogan on bumper stickers in California. Perhaps people in California still put the bumper sticker on their cars. “Welcome to California. Now go home.”
During the Great Depression many people who lost their farms to the dust bowl moved to California. They were not welcome.
100,000 people moving to a city in the rust bowl with a high unemployment rate would not benefit those who already lived there. They would compete for scarce resources.
Every technological advance has costs that people forget about if they think population growth is a good thing because it inspires technological advances.
Instead of opinions, how about providing an actual fact? Give me examples of cities where unemployment decreased, jobs improved, and quality of living soared because of lowered population. Give me examples of cities where unemployment increased, jobs deteriorated, and quality of living dropped because population increased. Real world examples. If any of what you are saying is true, there must be hundreds of examples because population increases and decreases have been a fact of life in the U.S. since WWII. Additionally, you can see the same trends in older industrial areas in Europe.
Short-term losses because of the housing crisis don’t count. I’m looking at long-term trends over decades. You know, real world examples. Like the entire Rust Belt. And the entire Sunbelt.
Your turn.
Oh yeah. Then this must be why New York City, with eight million people competing for those scarce resources, is the poorest place in the United States. People in the Big Apple live off of a dollar of income a day on average, right?
And a lone individual, living in the Alaskan wilderness with no competition, is the richest man alive. He lives in large empty mansions, and is driven around by computerized cars on scenic solitary highways that exist solely for him. He can afford the finest foods and clothes. Because he has no competition.
Again, the same mistake sociologists have been making for decades: you’re ignoring the amount of production those 100k people will bring. Let’s say the area already has 100k people. Adding 100k people will double the number of farmers, doctors, policemen, sanitation workers, etc. The 2nd group will not just sit on their hands and wait for handouts from the first group.
You are well aware that the evidence you ask for is beyond my resources.
If you have the resources, provide evidence of the opposite. Show me when a migration of jobless, poor people to a city with high unemployment benefited wage earners and jobless wage earners who already lived there.
Some things are so obvious that they should be self evident.
During the 1950’s the U.S. population rose. So did median income adjusted for inflation. A number of factors contributed to this, other than the growth in the population.
Although the birth rate was high during the 1950’s, those entering the job market had been born during the Great Depression when the birth rate was much lower. Also, immigration to the United States was low because the Immigration Act of 1924 greatly restricted non European immigration.
First of all, and most obviously it would not double the number of farmers. The people moving in would not have farms. They would not have the money to buy farms.
Beyond that, the influx of an additional 100,000 people would increase the number of people applying for jobs as doctors, policemen, sanitation workers, etc. This in turn would reduce the salaries of those who have those jobs, while increasing their job insecurity.
The only people who would benefit would be employers, landlords, and those who have already paid their home mortgages.
For example, more people would look for a place to live. Consequently, landlords would be able to raise rents. More people would look for jobs as apartment managers, apartment custodians, and so on. Therefore landlords would be able lower wages for these positions.
The average income in New York is high, because New York has high paying jobs, especially in finance. The average income in San Francisco is high because San Francisco has high paying jobs, especially in computer technology. Well paying jobs do not exist in the Alaskan wilderness.
Better examples would be Detroit and Camden. When factories closed there factory jobs were lost. Little or nothing replaced them. Median income in those cities is very low.
To have a high standard of living in an area there needs to be at least one source of well paying jobs. Once that exists, the more people there are competing for those jobs, the less they pay.
Asking you for one single example to back up your opinions is beyond your resources? If that’s true, you’re admitting to a horrifying failing.
That you are dead wrong is one of them.
One example. Any time, anywhere. One.
Why don’t high paying jobs exist in the Alaskan wilderness? Why is it that one guy, living by himself in the wilderness, has a lower standing of living that a guy living in a city with millions of other people?
In the case of Detroit, it wasn’t that too many people moved to Detroit, which meant to many workers, which meant a collapse of wages and Detroit’s economy going down the tubes. Instead, the factories closed, which meant no jobs, and so people left.
According to you, now that Detroit has lost half its population in the last few decades, the remaining people must be twice as well off. And it is true that you can buy houses in Detroit for literally pennies on the dollar compared to New York or San Francisco. But Detroit isn’t richer than it was decades ago, is it?
Detroit and Camden would be even worse off with larger populations.
You keep asserting that. We understand that you believe it.
However, for something you seem to believe is a universal truth, the fact that you can’t give us one actual historical example is telling. Zero evidence may be insufficient to persuade you that your theory is wrong, but you need to understand that you can never convince others with zero evidence.
Well, his bio does say he’s Episcopalian.
From what I know, the use of oil was not brought about by significant population growth.
Again, you assume that adding population changes nothing else. If the population doubles from 100k to 200k, how many of that new 100k will bring businesses, investment money, etc. The “good jobs” do not remain static, but usually increase.
You also assume that too many people means not enough jobs which means more homeless. Actually, homeless people in the US are homeless by choice, not by circumstance. Usually, the minimum unemployment in an area is 5%. This includes the mentally ill, aged, and children. When unemployment goes below 5%, that’s when retiree’s have to work, and I’ve seen where they had to employ the handicapped.
In the case of Detroit, what I would make of the situation is an utter lack of higher education. 3-4 generations grew up thinking all they needed was a high school diploma and they would have a good job working in a factory for the rest of their lives. When the factory jobs left, other businesses couldn’t move in because there was no educated workforce. Come to think of it, I can’t think of a single college with “Detroit” in the name.
Here are eight colleges in Detroit:
College for Creative Studies
Private not-for-profit
Special-focus institution
Ecumenical Theological Seminary
Private not-for-profit
Special-focus institution
Marygrove College
Private not-for-profit
Master’s university
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Private not-for-profit
Special-focus institution
University of Detroit Mercy
Private not-for-profit
Master’s university
University of Phoenix–Metro Detroit Campus
Private for-profit
Master’s university
Wayne County Community College District
Public
Associate’s college
Wayne State University
Public
Research university
Taken from this:
I know that this a weak response, but do you have contrary evidence?
One think I have read many times from many sources is that after bubonic plague reduced the population of Europe by at least one third the survivors enjoyed the highest standard of living Europeans had yet enjoyed. Wages were higher. Prices were lower.
That makes sense when you consider the law of supply and demand. There were fewer wage earners, so employers had to offer higher wages. There were fewer consumers, so producers had to lower prices.
Well, at least now you’ve offered a story.
But it’s an oversimplified story. From the Economist:
What have we been telling you? The cost of living went up. Which is to say, prices increased for many kinds of goods.
People don’t just consume. People produce. Fewer people eating from the fields necessarily means that there are fewer people planting and harvesting the fields. It’s simply not the case that more people automatically means more competition for scarce resources, because more people can often create and access more resources. More people can have more specialization of labor. We can all be much richer when there are more of us working together.
In a particular case where all the good farmland is fully occupied, and the extra population is forced to work marginal fields, then it’s easy to imagine a situation where mass death can improve average livelihood. With this particular situation, so many people are dead that the survivors can give up on the poor fields, and the entire population can farm the good stuff. This is a rare case where the survivors might be better off. But that’s not the story of Detroit today, or any other major industrial city. It wasn’t even the case in all situations during the Black Death. Sometimes the loss of the labor to harvest those fields led to food shortages that made people’s lives even worse, even though there were fewer mouths to feed.
No, it doesn’t make sense, because these are not the laws of supply and demand.
The supply of labor shrank during the Black Death. Sure. But if you’ve actually taken an intro micro class, or read a respectable textbook, you should know that the shifts in those curves only count ceteris paribus: all else held equal. So labor supply has shifted in because a third of the population is deceased? Okay. But what happened to labor demand at the same time? What were the determinants of labor demand in the medieval period? Wouldn’t the loss of a third of the population simultaneously decrease the demand for a lot of labor? To look at one shift in one curve in isolation is not a proper method for approaching this nature of problem. It’s a naive partial equilibrium analysis where such a thing offers us no insight.
You can’t point to simple “supply and demand” in this case, because a major civilizational maelstrom will shift every single curve in every market at the same time. This is a general equilibrium problem, so to speak. You have to think of the whole system.
And when we look at the whole system, we can see that people tend to be more successful when we work together in large groups. This is why New Yorkers are many orders of magnitude richer than any random nut who walks alone into the Alaskan wilderness without any reliance on the help of others. Workers will go to the jobs, yes, but jobs will also go to the workers. It’s a dynamic self-reinforcing process.
Detroit would be better off with more people. Camden would be better off with more people. The United States would be better off with more people. Many parts of the earth would be better off with more people. Obviously there is some limit here. Obviously this process can’t possibly go on forever. But no one has said that it can. What people have told you, correctly and repeatedly, is that success is the result of growth. Civilization is like riding a bicycle. If it stops moving, then it falls. And right now, more people riding the bicycle means we get to peddle a little faster. That won’t always be the case, can’t always be the case, but it is the case now. If Detroit had more people working together, specializing in their trades to make their own livings, then it would be a livelier and healthier city.