Post Reply  Post Thread 

Degrowth

Author Message
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #1
Degrowth

I have been thinking about attemoting a degrowth stae where I go for a policy of reducing population growth into the negative, kind of like Japan, and growing gdp per capita that way.

To start though, does anyone have advice on which state it is easy to get into negative population growth with? I know that columbia is very easy because I usually get 2 task options related to population growth early but 1st world nations dont let me get those issues easily.

10.12.2016 08:05
Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #2
RE: Degrowth

thepresidentmaN Wrote:
I have been thinking about attemoting a degrowth stae where I go for a policy of reducing population growth into the negative, kind of like Japan, and growing gdp per capita that way.

To start though, does anyone have advice on which state it is easy to get into negative population growth with? I know that columbia is very easy because I usually get 2 task options related to population growth early but 1st world nations dont let me get those issues easily.


Russia

10.12.2016 18:02
Quote this message in a reply
Alexei B.Miller
Co President of the Ros'Gaz Union State
*


Posts: 3,306
Words count: 515,575
Group: Basic
Joined: May2011
Status: Away
Reputation: 63
Experience: 5839
Glory Points: 525
Medals: 21

Post: #3
RE: Degrowth

This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


"Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, everyone needs to remember how that ended"

Vladimir Putin

10.12.2016 22:06
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #4
RE: Degrowth

yangusbeef Wrote:

thepresidentmaN Wrote:
I have been thinking about attemoting a degrowth stae where I go for a policy of reducing population growth into the negative, kind of like Japan, and growing gdp per capita that way.

To start though, does anyone have advice on which state it is easy to get into negative population growth with? I know that columbia is very easy because I usually get 2 task options related to population growth early but 1st world nations dont let me get those issues easily.


Russia


That's actually not a bad idea. It starts out in that border region of high and low population growth, so the demographic issues might still fire, quickly going into low growth. I think I'll start a russia along with my ddr state to test big and small starts. These will stay moderate and focus on birth control and immigration reduction. I think i'll make a radical third reduction at all costs country after these. Thanks for the suggestion!

Addendum: I did not realize at the time of writing, russia starts with small population decline. Regardless, it is good because the soviet government did the hard (or bad, great, lazy, you decide) work for me.

11.12.2016 01:30
Quote this message in a reply
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #5
RE: Degrowth

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


I hypothesize that the main benefit will be less resource contention, because with less people there will be somewhat more of everything to go around, though only if productivity gains made up for less workers.

You are right about automation. That makes population degrowth viable up to the mid term at least. I am personally aiming for at least moderate growth but really stability would be fine too.

Population degrowth provides a little safety net too, in that unemployment should stay low due to a strained labor supply (In a way forcing automation to replace workers), wage growth for the same reason (It could lift many service careers into middle class due to the need to be competitive for limited workers), and possibly GDP per Capita could be always growing even in recession as long as the population was shrinking faster. (Obviously, this would only be true for those minor recessions that cut like .30%)

I predict here will be some truly excellent social benefits as well. For one, the middle class should grow, proportional to total population, as people age and advance in their careers. They will not be replaced by younger and potentially poorer workers fast enough to keep the proportions the same. The upper class might experience a smaller scale same effect.

This should spread more middle class mores and norms through cultural osmosis, but it remains to be seen to what extent and if it is even of benefit.

11.12.2016 02:40
Quote this message in a reply
Alexei B.Miller
Co President of the Ros'Gaz Union State
*


Posts: 3,306
Words count: 515,575
Group: Basic
Joined: May2011
Status: Away
Reputation: 63
Experience: 5839
Glory Points: 525
Medals: 21

Post: #6
RE: Degrowth

thepresidentmaN Wrote:

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


I hypothesize that the main benefit will be less resource contention, because with less people there will be somewhat more of everything to go around, though only if productivity gains made up for less workers.

You are right about automation. That makes population degrowth viable up to the mid term at least. I am personally aiming for at least moderate growth but really stability would be fine too.

Population degrowth provides a little safety net too, in that unemployment should stay low due to a strained labor supply (In a way forcing automation to replace workers), wage growth for the same reason (It could lift many service careers into middle class due to the need to be competitive for limited workers), and possibly GDP per Capita could be always growing even in recession as long as the population was shrinking faster. (Obviously, this would only be true for those minor recessions that cut like .30%)

I predict here will be some truly excellent social benefits as well. For one, the middle class should grow, proportional to total population, as people age and advance in their careers. They will not be replaced by younger and potentially poorer workers fast enough to keep the proportions the same. The upper class might experience a smaller scale same effect.

This should spread more middle class mores and norms through cultural osmosis, but it remains to be seen to what extent and if it is even of benefit.


I have established a new Russian model state and will be conducting some experiments. Please keep me hip to your progress and discoveries.


"Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, everyone needs to remember how that ended"

Vladimir Putin

12.12.2016 02:17
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #7
RE: Degrowth

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:

thepresidentmaN Wrote:

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


I hypothesize that the main benefit will be less resource contention, because with less people there will be somewhat more of everything to go around, though only if productivity gains made up for less workers.

You are right about automation. That makes population degrowth viable up to the mid term at least. I am personally aiming for at least moderate growth but really stability would be fine too.

Population degrowth provides a little safety net too, in that unemployment should stay low due to a strained labor supply (In a way forcing automation to replace workers), wage growth for the same reason (It could lift many service careers into middle class due to the need to be competitive for limited workers), and possibly GDP per Capita could be always growing even in recession as long as the population was shrinking faster. (Obviously, this would only be true for those minor recessions that cut like .30%)

I predict here will be some truly excellent social benefits as well. For one, the middle class should grow, proportional to total population, as people age and advance in their careers. They will not be replaced by younger and potentially poorer workers fast enough to keep the proportions the same. The upper class might experience a smaller scale same effect.

This should spread more middle class mores and norms through cultural osmosis, but it remains to be seen to what extent and if it is even of benefit.


I have established a new Russian model state and will be conducting some experiments. Please keep me hip to your progress and discoveries.


Sure thing, I am going to start an indian state soon as well, then there will be 3 tiers from small to giant from which I can observe.

12.12.2016 04:24
Quote this message in a reply
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #8
RE: Degrowth

The first establishing moves are out in Plinipap and Sarsmagoon. Popularity is rising but it generally crashes anywhere from 5 to 10 quarters later (I do not often make ideologically consistent choices).

Plinipap is experiencing more immigration than emigration. Birthrates are just over a 1 child per family average. This is not high enough to fire events to lead to rapid population decline. In order to test population decline I will cut family spending by max in the coming winter, I will not yet cut subsidies or other spending until I am confident the economy can take errors in judgement and give me leeway.

Sarsmagoon had an excellent starting year, probably the best I have ever had for any state, corruption has been nearly halved (eliminating corruption seems to offend no groups as well). Sarsmagoon is nearly in a budget surplus so I feel confident enough in budgetary situation to build the great wall project. Hopefully this will put a small dent in population growth. Sarsmagoon hovers around the 1 child per family average birthrate as well, so I will be cutting family spending here too, though I can be liberal in other areas of spending until something bad happens.

13.12.2016 06:18
Quote this message in a reply
yangusbeef
Unregistered


Post: #9
RE: Degrowth

thepresidentmaN Wrote:

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


I hypothesize that the main benefit will be less resource contention, because with less people there will be somewhat more of everything to go around, though only if productivity gains made up for less workers.

You are right about automation. That makes population degrowth viable up to the mid term at least. I am personally aiming for at least moderate growth but really stability would be fine too.

Population degrowth provides a little safety net too, in that unemployment should stay low due to a strained labor supply (In a way forcing automation to replace workers), wage growth for the same reason (It could lift many service careers into middle class due to the need to be competitive for limited workers), and possibly GDP per Capita could be always growing even in recession as long as the population was shrinking faster. (Obviously, this would only be true for those minor recessions that cut like .30%)

I predict here will be some truly excellent social benefits as well. For one, the middle class should grow, proportional to total population, as people age and advance in their careers. They will not be replaced by younger and potentially poorer workers fast enough to keep the proportions the same. The upper class might experience a smaller scale same effect.

This should spread more middle class mores and norms through cultural osmosis, but it remains to be seen to what extent and if it is even of benefit.


The goods in the market are not a zero sum game. Businesses will lose incentive to produce goods and hire labor as the total population decreases. They'll also lose incentive to pay their employees a high amount to boost productivity.

14.12.2016 00:02
Quote this message in a reply
thepresidentmaN
Unregistered


Post: #10
RE: Degrowth

yangusbeef Wrote:

thepresidentmaN Wrote:

Alexei B.Miller Wrote:
This is a very interesting concept. What would be the merits of merely having a higher GDP per capita? This concepts make want to conduct my own economic research in this field. Such as if population is reducing but GDP per capita is increasing its total GDP remaining the same or having very very marginal growth due to population reduction. Or will this reveal that a smaller but educated population can increase add enough value to their economic output to noticeably increase GDP, while reducing population, and increasing per capita? Or shall we be increasing automation in boost GDP figures along with per capita while reducing pop? All these marvelous questions I need to have answered. I'll be watching your experiment closely.


I hypothesize that the main benefit will be less resource contention, because with less people there will be somewhat more of everything to go around, though only if productivity gains made up for less workers.

You are right about automation. That makes population degrowth viable up to the mid term at least. I am personally aiming for at least moderate growth but really stability would be fine too.

Population degrowth provides a little safety net too, in that unemployment should stay low due to a strained labor supply (In a way forcing automation to replace workers), wage growth for the same reason (It could lift many service careers into middle class due to the need to be competitive for limited workers), and possibly GDP per Capita could be always growing even in recession as long as the population was shrinking faster. (Obviously, this would only be true for those minor recessions that cut like .30%)

I predict here will be some truly excellent social benefits as well. For one, the middle class should grow, proportional to total population, as people age and advance in their careers. They will not be replaced by younger and potentially poorer workers fast enough to keep the proportions the same. The upper class might experience a smaller scale same effect.

This should spread more middle class mores and norms through cultural osmosis, but it remains to be seen to what extent and if it is even of benefit.


The goods in the market are not a zero sum game. Businesses will lose incentive to produce goods and hire labor as the total population decreases. They'll also lose incentive to pay their employees a high amount to boost productivity.


Okay, I shall keep an eye out for that.

14.12.2016 00:56
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: