[original post removed]
no thanks. i prefer gdp growth.
But why though?
Per capita seems like it is the only metric that matters to most individuals, whether absolute value or for growth. I’m looking at isolationist Switzerland and 0.2% yoy GDP growth doesn’t seem bad when population is flat. I don’t get the appeal of growth for growth’s sake.
much of canada’s immigration is highly skilled so odds of canada being off-trend technologically in future is low compared to slow growing Japan/Europe. also, high skilled immigration often comes with high incomes and decent asset size which means demand for housing and other goods keeps inflation above zero.
greater sustainability of social programs means less generational friction and a better political environment.
canada has some serious scaling up to do to reach commodity/infrastructure efficiencies enjoyed by more populous Western nations.
These are better reasons than the first one given, although not as strong or clear cut sounding.
The correlation between population growth and better infrastructure isn’t all that clear, again, many low or flat growth areas like Europe and Japan have world class infrastructure. Ultimately, I think deflation and the need to inflate is going to at some point experience a shift in perception that negative rates has. That said, broad deflation is problematic for economies that are carrying the debt burden from having tried to financially engineer growth (separate topic though). The second point is the most tangential. I felt the first was the most logically sound in its conclusion.
The point I’m making isn’t that immigration is bad, but more just taking the issue about building policies solely around aggregate GDP growth whether financial, immigration or otherwise. It creates the risk of growing out of habit when it doesn’t necessarily make sense to kind of like a conglomerate tacking on endless bolt-ons. The fear of not growing has sort of caused countries to financially engineer growth even as working populations growth began to fade in the face of fundamentals, and now they’re forced into growing to cope with the result of that debt and it all seems a bit like they’re chasing their tail.
Western Europe: 180/km2
interesting enough you can game gdp per capita too. imagine if you remove all low income people from the us and say send them to canada. gdp per capita naturally increases. anyways immigration can be bad or good. canada is awesome since the us serves as a buffer zone againast poorer countries like mexico.
immigration is bad if you are getting low quality people. aka uneducated, poor financially, poor in health, old people (terminal value ending). you usually find these people hopping a border/wall to earn a better wage. a minimum wage american can earn 7.25 bucks an hr, while a minimum wage mexican will earn 0.5$ per hr. imo no amount of work ethic will make your life better unless you get educated. and if thats the plan, then you should be educated in your native country.
anyways immigration is good if you are getting high quality educated people. usually they do it through legal means. but even if they do it illegally, these people generate enough productivity to forgive the crime since their jobs are typically high paying. they have financial assets to support them. they push up prices in general which is good if you are rich, but bad for domestic poors with no assets. brain drain is good when you are receiving the smart people.
1 can make an argument that children are a financial drain, but if they come from a good family, then they will ultimatley add value to the country as they will be well educated. anyways argumetns for immigration is that the children will add value as they will be educated irrespective of their parent’s education. and though that may be true. its just easier to pick winners than waste time and effort with low probabilities. anyways here is a sample of high quality migrants, this man’s not hot:
Two plus two is four Minus one that’s three, quick mathsEveryday man’s on the block Smoke trees (Ah)See your girl in the park That girl is a uckersWhen the ting went quack-quack-quack You man were ducking (You man ducked)Hold tight, Asznee (My brudda) He’s got the pumpy (Big ting) Hold tight, my man (My guy) He’s got the frisbee (Shew)I trap, trap, trap on the phone Movin’ that cornflakes (Uh) Rice Krispies
Lol, this is idiotic. Bang-up analysis as usual Clyde, responding to a fact about the lack of correlation between density and infrastructure with a rank of density. Regardless you aren’t going to populate the northern ice regions of Canada through immigration and it isn’t desirable to do so. Moreover, density is an arbitrary construct based on borders if you have large uninhabited regions full of ice road truckers (hence the lack of correlation to metrics like GDP per capita).
Nerdy, I never said GDP per capita can’t be gamed, although the method you suggested never really happens on scale since you need a place to send people.
So here’s countries with more than 100,000 km landmass (eliminates city states) with rank by density in descending and hte GDP per capita rank next to them:
Density Rank, Per Capita GDP Rank, Country
1, 24, India
2, 9, China
3, 19, Indonesia
4, 28, Ethiopia
5, 22, Egypt
6, 8, Mexico
7, 16, Iran
8, 15, South Africa
9, 14, Colombia
10, 23, DR Congo
11, 1, United States
12, 21, Angola
13, 12, Peru
14, 11, Brazil
15, 29, Sudan
16, 30, Niger
17, 17, Algeria
18, 6, Argentina
19, 5, Saudi Arabia
20, 26, Mali
21, 27, Chad
22, 20, Bolivia
23, 7, Russia
24, 10, Kazakhstan
25, 25, Mauritania
26, 13, Libya
27, 4, Canada
28, 2, Australia
29, 18, Mongolia
30, 3, Greenland
technically at least according to john smith from the movie pocahantas. the savages didnt know how to utilize the land. the natives didnt even understand the concept of gold and though it was corn. anyways tobacco/sugar was wildly profitable and the natives had no idea since they have never been to europe. immigrants began pouring into the us. there wasnt sufficent labor to cultivalte the land so immigrants were typically large families who were struggling in their domestic country as there was no work and everything was tied to nobility. the early americans tried a work around by using native americans as slave labor, but they just ran away and would retailiate. eventually the earlier settlers found that african slaves invited less repercussions and reduced the likelihood of escapes.
so the triangular trade was formed. britain would trade products for african slaves. they would then take the african slaves to the us. the us would then use the slaves to produce tobacco/sugar. who would then send it to britain to turn to rum/cigars to be sold to africa. anyways the result from this trade was the us was more productive. hte europeans had cheaper goods. and the africans got to to drink, smoke, and get rid of their enemies in a productive way instead of killing them. win win for all.
so to sum up. the reason the rejects of europe were useful, was because they was a labor shortage. that is certainly not the case now. the us gives more benefits than it receives in taxes hence the budget deficit. so to say that we should be liberal with handing out citizenship is ridiculous.
It’s not population growth that matters, but density .
Also…I like how US is ranked 11th in population density on your table. Really makes me trust your data
density doesnt mean it is a better area imo. lots of thrid world coutnries are dense. but density is a more efficeint way to handle people though. it is more productive and environmentally friendly.
anyways if any of the us cities had an influx of the people these thrid world countries currently handle. they wiould go to shit. the us doesnt have the infrastructure to handle it.
also in terms of gaming gdp per capita. the russians would send the ppl they hate to siberia. there were also wars that got rid of the excess population.
I don’t understand your question about km2. I cut it off by 100,0000km then used the two metrics people per km2 as density and gdp per capita for the other. I went with 100,000km for ease of presentability since because the findings were the same and also because frankly Canada cannot shrink, but also ran it on 10,000km and regressed the ranks and there is still no correlation between density and infrastructure. In the >10,000 list (167 countries), you are right that Bangledesh is the highest ranked by density, but that achieves nothing in terms of a counterpoint given its per capita gdp of $1,745.
The top 10 of the >10,000k list is actually as below, as you can see, for every South Korea you pick up a Rwanda. Nice try with the intellectual dishonesty, but I’m the only one providing objective analysis here and you’re just sad about the results. Changing the filter does not change the correlation. SAD!
Country: Density: Per Capita GDP
Bangladesh: 1105: 1,745
Taiwan: 657: 24,971
Lebanon: 656: 9,257
South Korea: 511: 31,346
Rwanda : 479: 791
India: 416: 2,036
Burundi : 414: 307
Israel: 410: 41,644
Netherlands: 409: 53,106
Haiti: 406: 857
You may just be talking your book here, you seem a little dense. The metrics were density with no correlation.
The data is accurate from worldbank’s database.
Siberia is in Russia…
o lol i knew that. i just meant you can send them to the fringes of the country to negatively affect others. like putting homeless shelters all across the borders between us and canada. i m sure canada will be negatively affected if we implemented those policies. you just cant turn shit to gold.
Whether you use km^2 or km as the filter is irrelevant, you ge the same subset. I am using pp/km^2 as the density, so that is consistent.
Clarify: Speaking of consistency in metrics, what is your list of 39 high income economies can you provide a link? The World bank has such a list (not IMF) and it is ~80, so the 50% ratio is not over-indexed.
This breaks down when you play it the other way. Once I have a common list synchronized with whatever you’re working off, I’ll point you to looking at the list in reverse rank.
There’s nobody to negatively effect in or around Siberia other than polar bears.
Immigration for the sake of growth is a pretty sophomoric argument. Population growth cannot continue forever; at some point the planet’s resources will become depleted. A system that requires continuous population growth is flawed and countries should address this issue rather than looking for ways to increase population.