Population: Economic strength or weakness

[MusaPk]

If a large part of the population of a country is lazy then this population will be the biggest concern for that country, that country will have to go through many problems with this population. But if the population of a country is skilled, then their population will emerge as a blessing for that country. Now those who want to go to developed countries with the expectation of a job, if they are skilled, then they do not have much problem in getting a work permit in that country.

So being skilled is very important nowadays, if you don't have the skills then you will have a lot of problems to get a job. Therefore, if the population of a country is skilled and talented, then that country gets a lot of acceptance globally. So countries that currently have high birth rates should make their population a strength by making them skilled.

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

[1714237594]

1714237594

[1714237594]

1714237594

[bocyaj]

The population had good impact in some country like China,the goods of China was in all the countries.All of us know the exact reason for this,the china using their population for the productive purpose.Even though the country economy was based on the communist based,the government satisfy their people by the good economic benefits.The china was the powerful economy next to the United States was the remarkable one.The china total strength is their population,the government used it in correct manner.

[ScamViruS]

~~

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

This is what I am saying, a country that can make its population efficient, that population will become the wealth of that country. India is currently trying its best to utilize its population properly and they have been quite successful. To keep a country in balance, youth is needed for which the birth rate is an important factor, if the birth rate of a developed country continues to decrease regularly, then at some point the number of old people in that country will increase and the working youth will decrease. So population and birth rate are very important in determining the future of a country.

[MusaPk]

This is what I am saying, a country that can make its population efficient, that population will become the wealth of that country. India is currently trying its best to utilize its population properly and they have been quite successful. To keep a country in balance, youth is needed for which the birth rate is an important factor, if the birth rate of a developed country continues to decrease regularly, then at some point the number of old people in that country will increase and the working youth will decrease. So population and birth rate are very important in determining the future of a country.

There are developed countries (like Germany and Japan) where birth rate is very low and government is trying to increase birth rate by giving incentives to families. Skilled labor from developing countries find such countries ideal place for immigration. Birth rate is a real issue specially in developing countries of south Asia and Africa. The government can only afford a certain level of population based on its available resources. 

[ancafe]

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

Not many countries with such a large human population can catch up with what China has done. It takes advanced thinking from a leader to get their country out of the pressure of decline. China is trying to control and dominate the world economy through trade routes and the products they create and currently they almost control the Asian market. India is far behind compared to China, but they are slowly trying to implement a strategy like China, by offering products and industry to several Asian markets in particular.

Population is not very relevant which can prevent any country from getting out of economic problems, but a large population can also hinder the country's economic growth because a large population can make it difficult for the government to increase the source of income for the country. If the leader has a concept in managing the country then population size may not be very relevant which can affect the decline of the country.

[$anounimus$]

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

Not many countries with such a large human population can catch up with what China has done. It takes advanced thinking from a leader to get their country out of the pressure of decline. China is trying to control and dominate the world economy through trade routes and the products they create and currently they almost control the Asian market. India is far behind compared to China, but they are slowly trying to implement a strategy like China, by offering products and industry to several Asian markets in particular.

Population is not very relevant which can prevent any country from getting out of economic problems, but a large population can also hinder the country's economic growth because a large population can make it difficult for the government to increase the source of income for the country. If the leader has a concept in managing the country then population size may not be very relevant which can affect the decline of the country.

A large population for some countries is a positive thing because a large population can be used as a subject for development, the economy will develop if the number of workers is large. A large population, if accompanied by adequate population quality, will be a driver for economic growth. On the other hand, a large population combined with low quality makes that population a burden on national development.

So in my opinion it doesn't have a significant negative impact on the economy in a country with a large population, it's just that the government needs to increase its quality human resources with quality education evenly and be able to master technology so that it can help the country to achieve development targets.

However, if it is mismanaged it will really make the situation worse. The large population and its high growth rate have consequences for the difficulty of finding work, high food prices, education and health costs and many social problems due to the large number of unemployed and so on.

[ancafe]

A large population for some countries is a positive thing because a large population can be used as a subject for development, the economy will develop if the number of workers is large. A large population, if accompanied by adequate population quality, will be a driver for economic growth. On the other hand, a large population combined with low quality makes that population a burden on national development.

A large population can also prevent a country's economy and development from developing quickly because it will be difficult to develop competence human resources, especially if the country is a poor country. The quality of a country's population will be seen from the education they receive and the jobs available. For poor countries, this is far from expected because the government's focus must be on building human resources first.

So in my opinion it doesn't have a significant negative impact on the economy in a country with a large population, it's just that the government needs to increase its quality human resources with quality education evenly and be able to master technology so that it can help the country to achieve development targets.

Whether the is negative or not depends on the leaders of a country, whether they are able to develop human resources or not, the availability of job opportunities can also be seen to what extent the government can develop. Poor countries definitely have far fewer human resources and it is difficult for them to develop skills because the education rate there is very small.

However, if it is mismanaged it will really make the situation worse. The large population and its high growth rate have consequences for the difficulty of finding work, high food prices, education and health costs and many social problems due to the large number of unemployed and so on.

Governance depends on the vision and mission of the leaders we have. If a leader comes from ideas and concepts, perhaps this will be easy for them to develop, but if leaders are born from the opposite, it will be very difficult for them to develop human resources. Many other problems will arise if the population is too large and the country is classified as poor, even worse if the country does not have natural resources that can help the government in building human character, development and a sustainable economy.

[YUriy1991]

A large population for some countries is a positive thing because a large population can be used as a subject for development, the economy will develop if the number of workers is large. A large population, if accompanied by adequate population quality, will be a driver for economic growth. On the other hand, a large population combined with low quality makes that population a burden on national development.

A large population can also prevent a country's economy and development from developing quickly because it will be difficult to develop competence human resources, especially if the country is a poor country. The quality of a country's population will be seen from the education they receive and the jobs available. For poor countries, this is far from expected because the government's focus must be on building human resources first.

Yes. It cannot be denied that if we compare the impact of a large population on a country's economy, ranging from unemployment, mismanagement, gaps in access to basic services and lack of sustainable development of natural resources, this is a complex problem that has positive and negative aspects of course.

Well, I think what is needed is independent efforts from the community in terms of creating new jobs, let's say self-employed activities and of course don't expect too much to get a job from the government. I think this mainshet must exist and get a helping hand from the government to encourage it so that there are young cadres who after graduating from school do not have to become civil servants in their country.

[summonerrk]

If a large part of the population of a country is lazy then this population will be the biggest concern for that country, that country will have to go through many problems with this population. But if the population of a country is skilled, then their population will emerge as a blessing for that country. Now those who want to go to developed countries with the expectation of a job, if they are skilled, then they do not have much problem in getting a work permit in that country.

So being skilled is very important nowadays, if you don't have the skills then you will have a lot of problems to get a job. Therefore, if the population of a country is skilled and talented, then that country gets a lot of acceptance globally. So countries that currently have high birth rates should make their population a strength by making them skilled.

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

Yes, but Switzerland is not well suited for comparison with average states, because there were no any wars there, and there are very few such states in the world. Plus, Switzerland has been making money throughout history without knowing crises. The same applies, for example, to the state of Liechtenstein. In general, if the state has a large population, then this is good, the main thing is that the government is engaged in education, and then the country will have a lot of working hands ready to move the economy forward.

[slapper]

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

Not many countries with such a large human population can catch up with what China has done. It takes advanced thinking from a leader to get their country out of the pressure of decline. China is trying to control and dominate the world economy through trade routes and the products they create and currently they almost control the Asian market. India is far behind compared to China, but they are slowly trying to implement a strategy like China, by offering products and industry to several Asian markets in particular.

Population is not very relevant which can prevent any country from getting out of economic problems, but a large population can also hinder the country's economic growth because a large population can make it difficult for the government to increase the source of income for the country. If the leader has a concept in managing the country then population size may not be very relevant which can affect the decline of the country.

A large population for some countries is a positive thing because a large population can be used as a subject for development, the economy will develop if the number of workers is large. A large population, if accompanied by adequate population quality, will be a driver for economic growth. On the other hand, a large population combined with low quality makes that population a burden on national development.

So in my opinion it doesn't have a significant negative impact on the economy in a country with a large population, it's just that the government needs to increase its quality human resources with quality education evenly and be able to master technology so that it can help the country to achieve development targets.

However, if it is mismanaged it will really make the situation worse. The large population and its high growth rate have consequences for the difficulty of finding work, high food prices, education and health costs and many social problems due to the large number of unemployed and so on.

Your reasoning is partially correct, but it ignores the complexity of current population management. A huge population doesn't guarantee a strong workforce or economy. More people don't necessarily mean more progress. Human resource quality is key, and that's the issue. It takes competent, educated people to innovate and produce, not just bodies. Don't even mention socioeconomic inequities from a mismanaged large nation. The government must “increase” quality human resources and distribute them fairly across industries. The problem of managing technical advances in a vast population is another issue. It's not enough to master technology; you must integrate it into numerous industries without furthering inequality. Thus, while your excitement about a huge population is encouraging, you must examine its many obstacles

[RockBell]

The population had good impact in some country like China,the goods of China was in all the countries.All of us know the exact reason for this,the china using their population for the productive purpose.Even though the country economy was based on the communist based,the government satisfy their people by the good economic benefits.The china was the powerful economy next to the United States was the remarkable one.The china total strength is their population,the government used it in correct manner.

Countries like China are developed countries and the system is working over there I won't dispute the fact the population is productive and has been of serious use to the country, because of that same population other countries go to China to establish their business in China because labor is cheap so its a point of attraction to many. and even the population being a blessing in disguise also has its own disadvantage because even now the china government have laid down polices to control birth. With that population, the government's ability to provide housing and other services will be made more challenging. They even had land issues, so the only thing they could do in terms of agriculture and housing was to start going vertical.


While I don't believe that China's population is a burden, it still needs to be controlled. One thing that surprises me the most is that despite having such a large population, they are among the most powerful nations in the world. Their functionality is extremely impressive when compared to other nations' talk of technology, and they are even among the top nations in terms of health, and herbs.

[ancafe]

Yes. It cannot be denied that if we compare the impact of a large population on a country's economy, ranging from unemployment, mismanagement, gaps in access to basic services and lack of sustainable development of natural resources, this is a complex problem that has positive and negative aspects of course.

Well, I think what is needed is independent efforts from the community in terms of creating new jobs, let's say self-employed activities and of course don't expect too much to get a job from the government. I think this mainshet must exist and get a helping hand from the government to encourage it so that there are young cadres who after graduating from school do not have to become civil servants in their country.

The problem is so complex and cannot be solved properly by the government, in the end the people have to find their own way to solve this problem and I agree that there is a need for independent efforts by the community to get out of this problem. Waiting for the government to solve it will be hopeless because it is impossible for government to reach a large population, especially for some people who live far from urban areas where the economic cycle is quite slow.

In developed countries, civil servants are not a dream job because working for the government does not make them free to reach a level of financial maturity. Building your own business is much more promising than hoping to work in the government. This mainshhet must be developed so that people do not expect too much help from the government.

[dothebeats]

Yes. It cannot be denied that if we compare the impact of a large population on a country's economy, ranging from unemployment, mismanagement, gaps in access to basic services and lack of sustainable development of natural resources, this is a complex problem that has positive and negative aspects of course.

Well, I think what is needed is independent efforts from the community in terms of creating new jobs, let's say self-employed activities and of course don't expect too much to get a job from the government. I think this mainshet must exist and get a helping hand from the government to encourage it so that there are young cadres who after graduating from school do not have to become civil servants in their country.

The problem is so complex and cannot be solved properly by the government, in the end the people have to find their own way to solve this problem and I agree that there is a need for independent efforts by the community to get out of this problem. Waiting for the government to solve it will be hopeless because it is impossible for government to reach a large population, especially for some people who live far from urban areas where the economic cycle is quite slow.

In developed countries, civil servants are not a dream job because working for the government does not make them free to reach a level of financial maturity. Building your own business is much more promising than hoping to work in the government. This mainshhet must be developed so that people do not expect too much help from the government.

It's simple really, people need to start understanding that although the government holds a responsibility to govern and protect the country and its people, we have our own individual responsibilities as well. No matter how many projects, help, and assistance the government provides, if an individual refuse to help themselves and take an action then it will always result back to where they started--nothing.

[ancafe]

It's simple really, people need to start understanding that although the government holds a responsibility to govern and protect the country and its people, we have our own individual responsibilities as well. No matter how many projects, help, and assistance the government provides, if an individual refuse to help themselves and take an action then it will always result back to where they started--nothing.

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.

[Hewlet]

Some economists will argue that the reason for the underdevelopment of most country is due to overproduction.

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.

[Joshapat]

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.

[inthelongrun]

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.

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.

[Wayan_Pedjeng]

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 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.

[Fortify]

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?

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.

[slapper]

It's simple really, people need to start understanding that although the government holds a responsibility to govern and protect the country and its people, we have our own individual responsibilities as well. No matter how many projects, help, and assistance the government provides, if an individual refuse to help themselves and take an action then it will always result back to where they started--nothing.

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.

Your insights about human nature, work ethic, and government support raise a shared social and economic policy issue, no? Assistance vs self-initiative is a tricky balance. Is it appropriate to call someone “lazy” or blame their dependence on aid on a lack of willpower?

Automation, globalization, and other macroeconomic forces influence the employment market in the modern economy, therefore it is not a reflection of human will or character. Numerous, often hidden hurdles skew opportunities, education, and social mobility in this complicated system

When discussing independence and economic stability, shouldn't we also explore how we can remove these barriers as a society to ensure that support empowers and empowers? Not simply how much support is given, but how it's designed to uplift those who get it, right?