[Grovenet] America's Trillion-Dollar Baby

[David Morelli]

On Feb 4, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Carol Morgan wrote:

> Yikes, ya think that wouldn't be popular?
>
> I guess it depends on whether you are the 'quality' circle or not.   
> I am not sure how anyone would determine that, I guess, much less  
> how to enforce it.
>
> This country at least is probably instead going to turn its  
> attention to the opposite goal, how to get people to have more  
> kids.  They are already panicking in Europe and parts of Asia  
> because they are faced with their populations being 'decimated' by  
> the birth rate situation.  I guess it would be more than decimated,  
> in the proper usage.

If anyone is panicking over a shrinking population, they must be  
planning on living off of the income of the younger generation.

With a shrinking global population, the production of goods and  
services would be more likely to be sufficient to meet their needs  
not less, the problem would be in the distribution of the products.

The world was fully capable of feeding, sheltering and meeting the  
needs of its population at a level commensurate with the technology  
when the world only had 2 Billion people.  We have better technology,  
greater knowledge, and more refined communication and transportation  
systems, why would these things disappear if the population were to  
decline?  They are more likely to disappear if the world population  
consumes the resources that sustain us before we can get to a  
balanced energy budget.  They are most likely to disappear if the  
world descends into a global war over petroleum or food resources  
because of population pressures.

With automation, we don't really need large numbers of unskilled  
workers to fill our factories.  With modern technology, we don't even  
need large numbers of bodies to act as cannon fodder like they did in  
the trenches of World War I.

I would expect that a 10% reduction in the labor force could be  
balanced by the remaining labor force working 10% more years before  
retirement.  If the work force typically starts to work at 18 and  
retires at 65, thats 47 years of work before retirement, a 10%  
increase would have us working until 70 to keep the work force at a  
similar body count.  That is IF the advances in productivity cease.   
Otherwise a 10% increase in productivity means that you can reduce  
the work force by 10% for the same output.  Also with a shrinking  
population, the output can shrink as well, so you don't need to  
retain as many workers.

David