High land prices may be causing unemployment

"This doesn't take into aaccount growth theory and how population growth also generates economic growth" (Reiver)

"What we got here is... failure to communicate." {see Cool Hand Luke}

"that population growth will generate economic growth is a basic premise (supported by of course empirical evidence)" (Reiver)

I am just pointing out that the premise does not always work, as other aspects of culture come into play.

I said: "Population increase is certainly going to effect the availability of and cost of land. And increased cost of living, where that living arrangement is not an investment, causes more unemployment in the long run."

You said: "This doesn't take into aaccount growth theory and how population growth also generates economic growth"

I then provided empirical evidence of two civilizations that do not fit your basic premise.

"Where that living arrangement is not an investment" could be a culture's living arrangement that cuts down trees for some stupid cultural practice and does not invest in them. In the book "Taiko: An Epic Novel of War and Glory in Feudal Japan" by Eiji Yoshikawa there is a realization that they needed to manage the forests to preserve trees, or invest in them. Simply populating does not grow more trees or create an economy when culture is stupid. I had a huge allergic fit in New Zealand in one of their one species forests, miles and miles of the exact same tree, where the old forest had been burned down chasing a fracking bird by a culture that did not manage its affairs well.

 

No need to have a paddy. You made an elementory error, failing to take into account the impact of population on overall economic activity. Your attempts to suggest otherwise have simply been about avoiding macroeconomic reality. Now there are debates to be had, such as the relevance of endogeneous growth models. You're not touching on those though so its simply about eliminating that error and moving on

 

Who cares about the size of the economy? It is the per person allotment that matters. We could have a bigger economy, but that is not going to be a good thing if there are also many more people, and thus less wealth for each person. I would argue that more people could potentially actually shrink the economy by driving down wages and increasing the price of land for housing. If people have to pay more for their house, there is going to be more money tied up in the value of land, and less money for these people to spend on other productive things.

 

Anybody making valid economic remark. There hasn't been much of that in this thread!

A simple orthodox approach wouldn't conclude that there is less wealth per capita. That's the whole point!