Population: Economic strength or weakness

[Yamane_Keto]

Population are not a reason for the poverty or progress of countries, as there is China and India with a population density of more than 2 billion people. However, one of the two countries is significantly ahead of the other, despite the similar circumstances between them.
Resource management, politics, population management, economic plans, and the approach taken by governments is what transforms a people to be productive, for example in South Korea, and a people suffering from high levels of poverty, as is the case in North Korea.

I am not a supporter of the conspiracy theory or that there are countries that deliberately impoverish countries to get cheap labor, but cheap labor is in itself an economic force if it is properly exploited.

[goldkingcoiner]

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?

For the price of Bitcoin, the more people the better.

That is an interesting question. How many people are too many people and how few people are too few for an optimal economy, given the fact that we have only planet earth to live our lives on? People think we can terraform mars or populate the moon but that those are all dreams. People would rather live underground before having to live in radioactive deserts with no atmosphere. So we definitely have a limited amount of room for human beings. Some say 10 billion but thats a crass underestimate, if you ask me. I am sure we can easily get to a hundred billion people, but everyone would have living conditions like the poorest people in China. So, they would not have a very good life. So economically, that would be everyone being driven by a need to survive, not thrive. The difference between rich and poor would be hopelessly, extremely far apart. Basically like in the movie "In Time".

Although anyone with a single Bitcoin would be a Trillionaire. So feel free to save Bitcoin ahead of time and your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren can be rich. If nobody spends or sells the BTC before...

[Sayeds56]

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.

You have drawn an interesting perspective of relationship between population and prosperity of the people living in any specific country. It highlights an important  aspect of how the number of people in a nation can impact their overall prosperity and economic success.

China is a good example for debate on this topic, as it is most populous country with persistent highest GDP growth rate. The key factor to understand this phenomenon  lies in the wisdom and visionary approach of the leadership, effectively harnessing its population to enhance agricultural and industrial production that results in overall well being of the general public.

[Eternad]

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.

Agreed. China and India both use a form of government that is centralized to the leader since both this country use parliament and communist that allows the government to use all the country resources without giving much consideration what's the opinion of everyone unlike democracy which sometimes slow the process of implementing law because there's always a different party to opposed on every law because of their self interest motives.

I really like democracy if there's no corrupt politicians but on the current status of most democratic country. I think communism is very good to improve the economy of a developing country.

[SmartGold01]

When we talking of over population or over populated nation those people are somehow facing difficulty in terms of work and job opportunities. Most times it could be very hard for the government of the nation to satisfy everyone's need due to the over population whereby causing lack of employment, we can use Chinese as an example.

Sometimes population are being controlled by the government and also they creates job opportunities, but what I understand mostly is that any nation that is creative and not depending on the government for working opportunity or to get employed in white-collar job. With the much population the inhabitants creates jobs for them selves without waiting for the government just as you have said earlier. Lemme use Nigeria as a case study, there is a much population in our country Nigeria and there's no employment opportunities but what her citizens does is to create work and chances for themselves by so doing they have one way or the other contributed to the strength and growth of the nation.

So alternatively, population doesn't hider the growth of a nation except such the inhabitants are too weak and are solely depending on the government for works. With the rate at which some countries are being populated they must not wait for a government or their country rather they should think of what they could do for their country to grow economically and scientifically.

[Blitzboy]

The dilema of a growing population, yes. This problem has many layers. Its as if we've taken the standard Malthusian idea and blindly applied it to all countries without taking into account their unique circumstances. However, blaming overpopulation for economic stagnation or stagnation for population growth is a reductionist view.

There may be underlying issues with governance and resource management rather than population density that need to be addressed first. Utilzing one's workforce efficiently is the key. It would appear that poor leadership and unfair allocation of resources are the main culprits in the economic woes experienced by developing countries.

Its worth exploring the alternative viewpoint, though. In a very real way, industrialized countries need the labor force of overpopulated ones. Reduced population growth in these countries could lead to a lack of workers in industrialized nations. Its like a chain reaction, but on a global scale. We need to pause and deliberate about equitable, long-term population strategies that take into account the effects on both the domestic and international levels

[naira]

I noticed that Japan also seems to be trying to improve its human resource management system which they themselves are in danger of becoming extinct. Some cities there find it difficult to find permanent residents, the declining birth rate is due to the perception of marriage that is being implemented recently. Switching to India with the largest population in the world also does not always seem ideal, the government finds it difficult to strike a balance between economic distribution plus the special structure which is an obstacle.

Here, both high and low population, even if the government is able to balance it with the resources it has, it will not be a big problem. Asian and African countries are in the spotlight because their government systems are corrupt, access to the job industry prioritizes foreign workers, increased unemployment while the dependents per head of family are above 2 or 3 or even more.

Still in the Asian region we have a family planning program where one family is enough for 2 children, the aim is to slow down the unstable population rate. Even though the program is not mandatory for all citizens to follow, so far it can be said to be a temporary solution that is quite ideal.

[rat03gopoh]

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. 

That's right, if population rates were an indicator of economic well-being, China might deny it.
My government has some good policies and programs that I think will bring about significant economic changes during the 5 year period of leadership. Unfortunately, corruption is a default problem of the governance system that is difficult to get rid of, the effects of policies are not distributed effectively. While there is big financing in every policy that requires increasing the national debt, from here you know how the story goes.

[Gozie51]

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.

China and India supports your position also. For them, their population is a blessing and not a curse. They have used their population for an advantage rather than disadvantage like African countries. Population should be an advantage if properly planned because countries need market where they can export their manufactured products, so such is an advantage to countries who have large population as they have already existing market for themselves and others, trade is important. There are other advantages, like human resources apart from welfare, they are also involved as expatriate which generate foreign income to them.

[retreat]

The more the population does not mean the stronger the economy of a country, for example Nigeria and Singapore, you can see that Nigeria is 1.284 times bigger than Singapore, but at an economic level Singapore is much higher than Nigeria. From this we can conclude that with population density, it does not guarantee that a country is big in terms of economy.
But Nigeria's advantage compared to Singapore is the availability of a workforce and young people who are ready to defend the country and develop its economy. Even though in the future technology such as Artificial Intelligence will become more massive and the military will become more sophisticated, the need for young people is still needed so that a country is not filled with the majority of "old" people.

Moreover, third countries will not always be "modern slaves" of developed countries, of course they also have the desire to become developed countries. And now many countries have woken up from their long sleep and are trying to fight against the world order that has long been established by America and Europe. Countries in Asia have started to rise up and advance their economies to become developed countries, the point is that it only takes time for them to get there and of course developed countries don't want that to happen because it will have a massive impact on their countries and they don't want to be on par with these "third" countries.

[Smartprofit]

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.

If the country has a very large population, then it can create its own separate economic zone.  To do this, it needs to develop its industry and agriculture as much as possible, as well as stimulate domestic demand.  Over time, it will become a regional power (and possibly a leading world power).  

A country with a small population should enter, on mutually beneficial terms, into an economic zone centered on a country with a large population.  Such a country should fit into the chain of cooperation with other countries.  

No country can exist alone.  

At the same time, countries with large populations have a chance to become the center of the economic zone.  

Countries with small populations have no such chance.

[Gyfts]

Access to education and free/fair markets are what's required to sustain an economy on a fundamental level. Government corruption usually affects the latter. African countries are overpopulated relative to their GDP which accentuates poverty. Given the lack of education, there's no economic activity. India had problems with this too, but they were able to grow their economy to overcome their population growth by educating their population and having a capitalistic economy with emphasis of free enterprise.

Population reduction (not overpopulation) is catastrophic: https://apnews.com/article/japan-birth-rate-record-low-population-aging-ade0c8a5bb52442f4365db1597530ee4

Japan will eventually run out of healthy young workers to subsidize the older and retired workers. You need population growth in order for an economy to survive, just not overpopulation of an educated populace.

[Unbunplease]

If the country has a very large population, then it can create its own separate economic zone.  To do this, it needs to develop its industry and agriculture as much as possible, as well as stimulate domestic demand.  Over time, it will become a regional power (and possibly a leading world power).  

A country with a small population should enter, on mutually beneficial terms, into an economic zone centered on a country with a large population.  Such a country should fit into the chain of cooperation with other countries.  

No country can exist alone.  

At the same time, countries with large populations have a chance to become the center of the economic zone.  

Countries with small populations have no such chance.

If a state pursues the right economic policy, it does not matter how much population it has. Of course, the larger the population, the greater the economic and military potential. If the population is small, such a state can be swallowed up by a larger one at any time. Although Switzerland is small, its economic potential is quite large

[Ultegra134]

Western developed countries suffer from underpopulation and reduced births in general, as newer generations tend to have fewer children than older ones used to, which is going to hurt their economies in the long run due to the increase in the aging population. Underdeveloped countries in Africa or Asia, on the other hand, suffer from overpopulation, which isn't helping their state and is happening due to a lack of education and protective measures. Even though India and China, which previous users mentioned, are supposedly two of the largest superpowers, the majority of their people are suffering from poverty and poor living conditions. There needs to be some balance in terms of birth control. The earth is overpopulated, but at the same time, the Western world is suffering from underpopulation and a decreasing number of births.

[dothebeats]

In a way population has an impact regarding the economic status of a country. However, it mostly comes down to the way government officials handles the overpopulation or underpopulation state of a nation. For example, countries like China and India shows that despite their known overpopulated country they are still able to boost their economic status, whereas other countries that are reaching peek overpopulation are simultaneously facing the problem of poverty.

[Sayeds56]

In a way population has an impact regarding the economic status of a country. However, it mostly comes down to the way government officials handles the overpopulation or underpopulation state of a nation. For example, countries like China and India shows that despite their known overpopulated country they are still able to boost their economic status, whereas other countries that are reaching peek overpopulation are simultaneously facing the problem of poverty.

I think population is not a sole factor to determine economic outcome of a country, there are other factors that play crucial role in shaping up the  economic trajectory of a country irrespective of population size, such as good governance, consistent and efficient economic management. Politicians often sell dream of prosperity to win elections, but achieving it requires more than just a large population. It is important for people to work hard with clear goals in mind, develop necessary skills and produce goods those not only meet local demand but also sellable in international markets to earn foreign exchange for the country. China and India serve as good examples that have mastered this strategy, earing foreign exchange through their export oriented  approaches. Achieving prosperity through exportable surplus is a successful economic model that other countries can follow in achieving their economic milestones for sustained growth and development.

[Argoo]

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 strength of each nation depends on many reasons. If we take into account the population, then its contribution to the development of the economic power of the state will determine not the number of the population as a whole, but the number of able-bodied population compared to the disabled. Then the development of industry in the country and the education of the population are of great importance. Indeed, in countries where the majority of the population is employed in agriculture with a predominance of manual labor, even their enormous efforts will be generally ineffective. Therefore, everything in the state must be balanced, depending on the location of the state, climate, soil conditions, historical employment of the population, and many other reasons.

[EarnOnVictor]

~snip~
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.

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.

Here we go again, when policy is inside policies, people tend to be confused about what worked. I thought of China while posting, and if anyone says that it's population control that helped China then the person misrepresents it. Any country that gets it right has nothing to fear about population, the management of the situation to their advantage through the right leadership and policies is the answer. This can only explain why countries like Canada are looking for more immigrants, you should know that an increase in population is never a problem, but the system the increased population would meet. If the system is positive, the increased population will help, if it's negative, then it becomes an issue.

As for China, this was what they tried to curb as they weren't getting the system right then while the population was becoming alarming, they averted a disaster. As of today, their big number even helps more since their system is working fine, the population increase would only have been an issue if they follow suit their former bad economic path, and now experts are concerned about looming issues if their population drops much as too much ageing population is never good for an economy.

Finally, what helped China to achieve their present status is mainly attributed to "good leadership and human resources." Also, their weaker currency compared to top countries aids further in the good trade balance which helps their GDP. Their ability to produce substandard products and render services cheaper than many top world countries goes a long way in helping their economy, this is even as their huge number contributed to this success, not otherwise as you indicated.

[Latviand]

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?

Your solution of exporting worker isn't a viable long-term solution because of brain drain in the developing nation which in turn causes their economy to suffer because there's not enough workforce there that can do specific roles. I don't have much knowledge about nations that are underpopulated, the only one that I know of is Japan and the only solution that I can see in their current situation is for the politicians to stop creating policies that cater more to the aging population and make their immigration more relaxed for people that want to live there.

To my best understanding of this topic, I think that the only way that we can combat the problem of overpopulation or underpopulation is a combination of creating a comprehensive and effective reproductive health, economic and labor policies, I believe that with this 3 factors being focused on, we might be able to alleviate if not solve the pressing concerns of both an overpopulated and underpopulated country. My other solution would be that of promoting works that aren't popular with the current generation which in my country is agriculture sector, putting some workforce in that area and making sure that it's a worthy endeavor getting in that sector will probably help with immigration and labor.

[MFahad]

 Overpopulation is consider as both beneficial as well as disadvantage but it will be due to the circumstances and how the government handle the situations whether he is handling properly or don't provide equal opportunity to them.

 This can be true that larger population can be weakness because those countries which possess over population are underdeveloped while developed countries has controlled population. I think it is something difficult to control population as its not in our hands.

 If population is under control then providing facilities for them is easy and one cannot provide equal opportunities to over population. On other hand overpopulation is also good in term of needs when there is need of young individuals in war or anything other so population is the only way who plays an important role in country's success.