Saturday, October 09, 2010

Interesting Fact of the Day: Population in 2050

By 2050, India will overtake China as the world's most populous country, and the United States will still rank #3.  Not too surprising.  But by 2050, which countries will rank #4, #5, and #6 by population?  That's a little more surprising, see the list here

And look at what's expected to happen for the populations of Japan and Russia between 2025 and 2050. 

25 Comments:

At 10/10/2010 12:48 AM, Blogger Ed Dolan said...

What strikes me as depressing about these numbers is not the total population growth, but how much of it is projected to take place in the most poorly governed countries. Yemen with 100 million people? Somalia with 40 million, four times more than now?

 
At 10/10/2010 9:09 AM, Blogger Jason said...

So when do we surrender to the Empire of Islam? I'd like to know so I can plan ahead.

 
At 10/10/2010 9:54 AM, Blogger bix1951 said...

"Things that can't go on, don't"
The human boom will stop some day.
Is it a homo sapiens "bubble" ?

 
At 10/10/2010 12:00 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

A hundred years ago, immigrants to the U.S. had roughly the same skill level as the domestic population, and most were from Western Europe. So, if U.S. population doubled, U.S. real GDP doubled.

Over the past few decades, there have been more unskilled, more skilled, and fewer average-skilled immigrants, i.e. the bell curve flattened. However, illegal immigrants and their children, over the past few decades, skewed the bell curve. So, if population doubled, real GDP less than doubled.

Currently, in California, 37% of the population is Hispanic. There are also other poor Third World immigrant groups, and a large poor black and white population. So, instead of pockets of poverty or near poverty, most of California is at or near poverty, and the state cannot afford decent education and health care for most of its population.

It seems, we need to increase high-skilled immigration and decrease low-skilled immigration to help raise living standards for the domestic population. So, if population doubles, U.S. real GDP will more than double.

 
At 10/10/2010 4:12 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"It seems, we need to increase high-skilled immigration and decrease low-skilled immigration to help raise living standards for the domestic population"...

Well PT consider the following commentary in Real Clear Politics by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation: Spinning the Real Costs of Illegals

There's more here: here...

 
At 10/10/2010 7:01 PM, Blogger Chris Matheson said...

Does this mean that secondary schools in the United States can finally drop German and French and focus on some increasingly important languages such as Mandarin, Arabic, Indonesian (the easiest language for Americans to learn), and others?

Ed, great point about the future trends in population growth; it seems like the countries that can least handle what they have now in regard to population will be burdened with even larger populations. How in the world will these countries cope?

 
At 10/10/2010 7:18 PM, Blogger Chris Matheson said...

Incredible opportunities for FDI and entrepreneurship in many of these countries. I also hope the United States is carefully examining previous foreign policy mistakes made in the developing world--we will need to be spot on in regard to our relationships with many of these predominantly Muslim countries.

 
At 10/10/2010 8:05 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Juandos, it's important to note low-skilled immigrants drive-down prices and drive-up profits.

However, I heard on the radio one day about a gardener who made a good living, until immigrants willing to work for much less forced him out of work (unless he was willing to share an apartment or live in a car).

Also, I heard, too many immigrants take up too much space, including public spaces.

 
At 10/11/2010 1:23 AM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

peak trader,

Why should the government - rather than the free market - determine the nation's mix of labor skills?

If U.S. employer A needs workers to pick his crop, let him hire whoever he wishes to pick his crop. If employer B needs a research biologist to develop drought-resistant crops, let him hire the biologist he wishes to hire, regardless of where that biologist is currently located. Why does the government need to get involved with such employer-labor voluntary relationships?

 
At 10/11/2010 2:02 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Jet, if there are hundreds of millions of Third World people wanting to move to the U.S., and the vast majority of them are poor, why allow open borders? Do we want to exchange higher wages for lower prices and higher profits?

Demographic Profile of Hispanics in California, 2008

Annual Personal Earnings of Hispanics $22,405

Annual Personal Earnings of Non-Hispanic Whites $40,736

Annual Personal Earnings of Non-Hispanic Blacks $30,552

Pew Hispanic Center
10-5-10

"In a year when support for Democratic candidates has eroded, the party's standing among one key voting group—Latinos—appears as strong as ever. Two-thirds (65%) of Latino registered voters say they plan to support the Democratic candidate in their local congressional district, while just 22% support the Republican candidate, according to a nationwide survey of Latinos. However, Hispanic registered voters appear to be less motivated than other voters to go to the polls."

Also, it seems, poor Third World immigrants, e.g. Hispanics, are more likely to want government services, perhaps to compensate for their relatively low income.

 
At 10/11/2010 2:32 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Perhaps, 30 years ago, exchanging higher wages for lower prices and higher profits benefited society. However, that may not be the case today.

 
At 10/11/2010 3:22 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Also, it seems, poor Third World immigrants, e.g. Hispanics, are more likely to want government services, perhaps to compensate for their relatively low income."

The problem, then, isn't the poor immigrant or low income, but the availability of government services. Perhaps better controlling those is where our efforts should be concentrated.

 
At 10/11/2010 7:08 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Juandos, it's important to note low-skilled immigrants drive-down prices and drive-up profits"...

Well PT it would seem that on the face of the particular comment those lower prices and higher profits would be at best very short termed...

I think Ron H. hit the nail squarely on the head with his: "The problem, then, isn't the poor immigrant or low income, but the availability of government services. Perhaps better controlling those is where our efforts should be concentrated"...

 
At 10/11/2010 7:10 AM, Blogger rob said...

Poverty always increases population to think otherwise is ignorance, the need is stability in their governments and it is the people of these countries job to replace the tyrants no one else. This talk of uneducated unskilled immigrants causing chaos and being a burden to the countries they flock to is bogus. Governments have no obligation to provide welfare to their own citizens let alone immigrants. Immigration fills a void in the market. There is an awfully lot of latent xenophobia in these post, don't be so circuitous if you're a bigot spit it out. I really thought the average IQ here might be higher.

 
At 10/11/2010 9:44 AM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

Peak Trader,

I wasn't advocating open borders. I'm just advocating freedom to engage in economic transactions. If I own a restaurant in Dallas, why shouldn't I be able to hire that execllent chef who prepared my meal at a restaurant in Cancun? Why should my list of potential employees be limited to U.S. citizens and existing legal residents? If you want me to sponsor that chef - and pay reasonable legal fees in order to make him a legal worker - then I'll pay those fees.

 
At 10/11/2010 11:09 AM, Blogger juandos said...

rob whines: "There is an awfully lot of latent xenophobia in these post, don't be so circuitous if you're a bigot spit it out"...

Oh yeah! What bigotry? Spit it out boy if you can see it...

I do note that those that seemingly having a hard time dealing with the laws on the books (a flaw running through many liberals) start reaching for odd names to call folks who do believe in the laws...

Then again these 'name callers' have offered little or nothing in the way of a substantive and credible argument for their own point of view...

 
At 10/11/2010 4:06 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Jet, why shouldn't you be able to hire those 10 workers in Bombay India willing to work for $2 an hour and live in your basement?

 
At 10/11/2010 4:23 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Ron, how will you control government services when people vote for them? Haven't we seen enough lack of control recently?

 
At 10/11/2010 4:51 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Jet, why shouldn't you be able to hire those 10 workers in Bombay India willing to work for $2 an hour and live in your basement?"

Peak, That's an easy one: I can answer that, and I hope Jet doesn't mind if I do.

He SHOULD be able to hire them. It's his $2/hr and his basement. If he & they mutually agree on that arrangement, that should be all that's necessary.

"Ron, how will you control government services when people vote for them? Haven't we seen enough lack of control recently?

Well, that's the $64k question, isn't it - oh wait! - It's a lot more than that now, isn't it.

I believe that the people paying and the people voting for them are 2 different groups. Then there's a large third group who believe it's OK to pay for services using someone else's money. As long as this last group votes in sufficient numbers, we are all screwed. Only by convincing enough of them to take their hands out of other people's pockets can we control such spending.

 
At 10/11/2010 5:19 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Ron, so the worker with similar skills and wants to earn $12 an hour to pay for his own apartment is out of luck. I guess, he'll have to share a basement, live in a car, or sleep in a park.

What if over half the workers can't get a $12 an hour job, because more and more people are willing to work for much less. What do you think they'll vote for?

 
At 10/11/2010 5:35 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

And let's not forget, U.S. corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Of course, they don't have to pay higher wages with the "excess" capital.

Also, many Americans will need to consume less, because they're behind saving for retirement.

Higher wages may benefit U.S. society more than lower prices and lower interest rates at this time and given the relative ratios.

 
At 10/11/2010 5:43 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

I believe, the housing "bubble" was a mechanism to raise living standards through assets and equity rather than through wages.

We need something similar to a production boom, similar to 1995-00, when real wages increased. I doubt more poor immigrants will get us there.

 
At 10/11/2010 5:50 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

A production boom will allow Americans to both consume more and save more.

 
At 10/11/2010 9:08 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Ron, so the worker with similar skills and wants to earn $12 an hour to pay for his own apartment is out of luck. I guess, he'll have to share a basement, live in a car, or sleep in a park."

Wanting to earn $12/hr is irrelevant. I would like a $500/hr job myself, but there aren't too many available for my skill set. If the going rate is $2.hr, then that's what one has to take. That's called competition. Keep in mind that the price of that apartment will drop as fewer can afford it. Other prices will also fall.

A contributing factor in today's high unemployment rate may be people looking for $12/hr jobs when there aren't any. There may be some $8/hr jobs, but that's not good enough. Those workers from Bombay will take them though, and quit working for Jet at $2/hr. He'll have to offer more to keep them or to hire new workers.

I think you're ignoring some supply & demand issues here, Peak.

"What if over half the workers can't get a $12 an hour job, because more and more people are willing to work for much less. What do you think they'll vote for?"

I don't know, but I doubt they can vote themselves $12/hr jobs.

 
At 10/11/2010 9:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Higher wages may benefit U.S. society more than lower prices and lower interest rates at this time and given the relative ratios.

Constantly higher wages cause the FED to constantly inflate the money supply to avoid unemployment. The new higher wages leave workers no better off, and hurt those who can't get higher income.

Also, many Americans will need to consume less, because they're behind saving for retirement."

For the reason I just explained.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home