Thread: Mass produce people --> devalue the value of a person = cheaper industries

I just realize that human workforce also valued like a money; if you print more people, then you'll devalue the value of a peson, and therefore you only need to pay less for their work.

This explain why China can produce more goods for cheaper price and why more foreign company build factory in China (because wages are cheap), and it also explain why developing country also promote procreation (because it promise better economy in the future), BUT this trend also worried me because all this country assume food/water/resources are always available for their population (which is not true).

-----

I'm just worried that:
It is a fact that global population is now 7 Billion (where it was 6.5 Billion when I last read about it in 2000) and is still increasing, and world getting more chaotic as people rioting everywhere, economy collapsed in some country, and threat of conflict looming in the middle east (between Iran and Israel), and there're still alot of hungry people needing aid in some nation... Do we still believe more population is better?? --also as an individual it is not fair to be valued too low...

Originally Posted by msafwan

I just realize that human workforce also valued like a money; if you print more people, then you'll devalue the value of a peson, and therefore you only need to pay less for their work.

This explain why China can produce more goods for cheaper price and why more foreign company build factory in China (because wages are cheap), and it also explain why developing country also promote procreation (because it promise better economy in the future), BUT this trend also worried me because all this country assume food/water/resources are always available for their population (which is not true).

-----

I'm just worried that:
It is a fact that global population is now 7 Billion (where it was 6.5 Billion when I last read about it in 2000) and is still increasing, and world getting more chaotic as people rioting everywhere, economy collapsed in some country, and threat of conflict looming in the middle east (between Iran and Israel), and there're still alot of hungry people needing aid in some nation... Do we still believe more population is better?? --also as an individual it is not fair to be valued too low...

To a point I think your correct about the value of people becoming less important the more of them there are, i.e if we were on the verge of extiction then human life would be very precious indeed, however 7 billion people's don't have the same significance and importantance. But in economic terms, and especially in China we have seen wages rise along with population and economies of scale have made it easier and cheaper for China to produce goods. Really the increase in people has led to economic success leading to an even greater demand for people. Basically self sustaining success but at the expense of other countries and this can only continue for so long.

Why are we using China as the example? China's population is subject to the "one child" laws, and pretty much all of their economic success has occurred after that law went into effect, not before.

As to the OP, yeah. What we're witnessing right now is a shift from the richest people being organizers of labor ("Captains of Industry") over to the richest people being successful real estate moguls.

Iron, Aluminum, and copper scrap have risen in price to the point where people can make a living gathering old refrigerators, or non-working automobiles and trucking them over the the local scrapyard to be melted down.

The weakest link in any production process is allowed to charge the highest price. Labor without resources is pretty much useless.

Point is, if you own minerals, arable land or any other kind of static resource that won't increase in abundance any time soon, the best trade arrangement you can hope for is one where the thing you will want to trade those things for (labor, mostly) is overabundant.

It's supply and demand. Everyone wants the thing they've got to be the scarce thing, so they get a good value for it in trade. The only exception is soldiers, who may hope their enemy increases in strength so they'll get better funding to fight that enemy.

Originally Posted by msafwan

I just realize that human workforce also valued like a money; if you print more people, then you'll devalue the value of a peson, and therefore you only need to pay less for their work.

The problem with this theory is that people are also your customers. Less people = less demand for your product.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Less people = less demand for your product.

And fewer competitors competing to fill that demand.

If both supply and demand drop by the same amount, then the ratio of supply to demand would remain fixed right where it is. That ratio is what matters, not the total values.

But... the number of raw materials/resources won't drop. That's bad news for land speculators, but great news for workers, because they're free to fill that void (the void left by cheaper raw materials) with higher wages.

I agree, if bread factory require less flour (because less demand) then flour price will drop (surpluss flour) and bread will be more cheaper to produce, but since demand are small therefore bread are made less and the value will go up (increase profit), and the extra profit (from increase bread value and cheaper flour) you can give to worker as bonus!

In contrast:
If you mass produce electric motor for 7billion people then you require alot of rare earth material (because more people = more demand) then rare earth price will go up (because of limited resource) and electric motor will be more expensive, but since it is more expensive then it can only be made in small number and the value will go up again, and you also need to subsidize the cost of rare earth material else your motor will be too expensive to be bought by the masses, and so profit is less...

P/S: in the perfect world the supplier will create more resources and this lower the value of the resources, but that's not what happen in todays world. In todays world there's no way to get more mineral/fuel/land-area without more expensive equipment.

Originally Posted by msafwan

I just realize that human workforce also valued like a money; if you print more people, then you'll devalue the value of a peson, and therefore you only need to pay less for their work.

This explain why China can produce more goods for cheaper price and why more foreign company build factory in China (because wages are cheap), and it also explain why developing country also promote procreation (because it promise better economy in the future), BUT this trend also worried me because all this country assume food/water/resources are always available for their population (which is not true).

-----

I'm just worried that:
It is a fact that global population is now 7 Billion (where it was 6.5 Billion when I last read about it in 2000) and is still increasing, and world getting more chaotic as people rioting everywhere, economy collapsed in some country, and threat of conflict looming in the middle east (between Iran and Israel), and there're still alot of hungry people needing aid in some nation... Do we still believe more population is better?? --also as an individual it is not fair to be valued too low...

People either accept the value/worth placed on them by others or they create their own value/worth.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

People either accept the value/worth placed on them by others or they create their own value/worth.

That is most definitely true, if people who are inactive can produce or sell a product or service then they increase their own value and their value to their country as whole.

It boils down to this really simplistic view on a global scale which is: The more active in producing goods and services the more people are then the more there is to go around and the more people will have.

So in reality all governments should be trying to get as many of those 7 billion active as possible, because in the long run it benefits all of mankind.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

That is most definitely true, if people who are inactive can produce or sell a product or service then they increase their own value and their value to their country as whole.

It boils down to this really simplistic view on a global scale which is: The more active in producing goods and services the more people are then the more there is to go around and the more people will have.

So in reality all governments should be trying to get as many of those 7 billion active as possible, because in the long run it benefits all of mankind.

More people doesn't mean more meaningfull work. Instead it is human nature that we tend to do meaningless work to fill our time (imagine 7 billion people doing meaningless work every day). One easy example is bureaucracies; eg: you will to spend an entire day of your life doing nothing but just to fill a form (now imagine 7 billion people doing this at the office every day).

This is called: "Parkinson's Law". It say: Work expands as to fill the time available for completion. It mean you'll have to do more work until you finish with that work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law)

And I don't think we can fix it. For example: "automation didn't increase productivity" paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox . Because all this meaningless work is caused by us ourselves, and 7 billion people will do this same thing.
--------

I'm just saying that there's something about us that make 100% productivity very hard to do.

Originally Posted by msafwan

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

That is most definitely true, if people who are inactive can produce or sell a product or service then they increase their own value and their value to their country as whole.

It boils down to this really simplistic view on a global scale which is: The more active in producing goods and services the more people are then the more there is to go around and the more people will have.

So in reality all governments should be trying to get as many of those 7 billion active as possible, because in the long run it benefits all of mankind.

More people doesn't mean more meaningfull work. Instead it is human nature that we tend to do meaningless work to fill our time (imagine 7 billion people doing meaningless work every day). One easy example is bureaucracies; eg: you will to spend an entire day of your life doing nothing but just to fill a form (now imagine 7 billion people doing this at the office every day).

This is called: "Parkinson's Law". It say: Work expands as to fill the time available for completion. It mean you'll have to do more work until you finish with that work. (Parkinson's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And I don't think we can fix it. For example: "automation didn't increase productivity" paradox: Productivity paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Because all this meaningless work is caused by us ourselves, and 7 billion people will do this same thing.
--------

I'm just saying that there's something about us that make 100% productivity very hard to do.

What is or isn't meaningful can be argued over and about as long as people are around to argue. However, I believe his point is/was valid... The more people there are providing goods and services, the better off everyone is or will be IMO.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

People either accept the value/worth placed on them by others or they create their own value/worth.

What you're discussing is imaginary worth. I think you are discussing how valuable we feel like we are, instead of how valuable we really are in trade value. You can't say "every person is worth 1000 kilograms of gold", and expect that to be true anywhere but in your imagination. To make that true in reality, you would need 7 trillion Kilos of gold to back the claim up with, and I doubt that much gold exists anywhere on Earth, even counting un-mined gold that's still underground.

Originally Posted by msafwan

I agree, if bread factory require less flour (because less demand) then flour price will drop (surpluss flour) and bread will be more cheaper to produce, but since demand are small therefore bread are made less and the value will go up (increase profit), and the extra profit (from increase bread value and cheaper flour) you can give to worker as bonus!

In contrast:
If you mass produce electric motor for 7billion people then you require alot of rare earth material (because more people = more demand) then rare earth price will go up (because of limited resource) and electric motor will be more expensive, but since it is more expensive then it can only be made in small number and the value will go up again, and you also need to subsidize the cost of rare earth material else your motor will be too expensive to be bought by the masses, and so profit is less...

P/S: in the perfect world the supplier will create more resources and this lower the value of the resources, but that's not what happen in todays world. In todays world there's no way to get more mineral/fuel/land-area without more expensive equipment.

This is only true for a narrow range of resources. Unfortunately, the economy needs many resources that fall outside that range in order to function.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What is or isn't meaningful can be argued over and about as long as people are around to argue. However, I believe his point is/was valid... The more people there are providing goods and services, the better off everyone is or will be IMO.

So, if I have a 70 Acre farm, with 20 people working on it, and I decide to quadruple my work force to 80 people, should I then expect my 70 Acre farm will begin to produce 4 times as much food?

maybe, the best thing that ever hapened to the midieval peasant workers in europe was the plague
when over 1/3 the workforce had been removed, the value of the peasant exceeded the value of the land
and suddenly
the midieval lords were a lot more polite

Indeed. Now just imagine how things will go for the now-democratic first world if the reverse happens, and population/work force increases by 1/3.

The excess population becomes more desperate, harder to control. People start turning wherever they can for someone to keep order. And "keep order" really means rationing out the few remaining land related resources in a way where people don't kill one another to get it.

Originally Posted by kojax

So, if I have a 70 Acre farm, with 20 people working on it, and I decide to quadruple my work force to 80 people, should I then expect my 70 Acre farm will begin to produce 4 times as much food?

The earth is not a 70 acre farm, however it does have limits on the number of people it can support, but we are no where near that limit. If the world had 14 billion people and it was run and organised properly then everyone would have enough of everything they needed and progress would also move fast as there would be more people getting things done. It comes down to organisation, something the world is currently in great need of.

Just think what could be achieved if all of the world's current population was organised so that everyone lived up to their potential and was doing something constructive instead of, what is the norm in cases, just trying to survive.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by gonzales56

People either accept the value/worth placed on them by others or they create their own value/worth.

What you're discussing is imaginary worth. I think you are discussing how valuable we feel like we are, instead of how valuable we really are in trade value. You can't say "every person is worth 1000 kilograms of gold", and expect that to be true anywhere but in your imagination. To make that true in reality, you would need 7 trillion Kilos of gold to back the claim up with, and I doubt that much gold exists anywhere on Earth, even counting un-mined gold that's still underground.

Originally Posted by msafwan

I agree, if bread factory require less flour (because less demand) then flour price will drop (surpluss flour) and bread will be more cheaper to produce, but since demand are small therefore bread are made less and the value will go up (increase profit), and the extra profit (from increase bread value and cheaper flour) you can give to worker as bonus!

In contrast:
If you mass produce electric motor for 7billion people then you require alot of rare earth material (because more people = more demand) then rare earth price will go up (because of limited resource) and electric motor will be more expensive, but since it is more expensive then it can only be made in small number and the value will go up again, and you also need to subsidize the cost of rare earth material else your motor will be too expensive to be bought by the masses, and so profit is less...

P/S: in the perfect world the supplier will create more resources and this lower the value of the resources, but that's not what happen in todays world. In todays world there's no way to get more mineral/fuel/land-area without more expensive equipment.

This is only true for a narrow range of resources. Unfortunately, the economy needs many resources that fall outside that range in order to function.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What is or isn't meaningful can be argued over and about as long as people are around to argue. However, I believe his point is/was valid... The more people there are providing goods and services, the better off everyone is or will be IMO.

So, if I have a 70 Acre farm, with 20 people working on it, and I decide to quadruple my work force to 80 people, should I then expect my 70 Acre farm will begin to produce 4 times as much food?

what is valuable or holds worth will vary depending on individual likes/needs/wants/thoughts/feeling/situations etc.... I am not even sure what you meant by the phrase "imaginary worth" unless you are a spiritual guru of some sorts...

Concerning your imaginary farm, the answer is yes in the right hands and under the right management, and no in the wrong hands and under the wrong management.

What someone is worth in gold is, as I stated earlier, either up to the person/people buying/paying for someone, or their worth in gold is what they can obtain being the captain of their own ship.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by kojax

So, if I have a 70 Acre farm, with 20 people working on it, and I decide to quadruple my work force to 80 people, should I then expect my 70 Acre farm will begin to produce 4 times as much food?

The earth is not a 70 acre farm, however it does have limits on the number of people it can support, but we are no where near that limit. If the world had 14 billion people and it was run and organised properly then everyone would have enough of everything they needed and progress would also move fast as there would be more people getting things done. It comes down to organisation, something the world is currently in great need of.

In other words, lets imagine if a species other than "humanity" occupied this world, one that was capable of not doing things imperfectly. I'm sure we are very far from reaching the limit of what that imaginary species could achieve.

Just think what could be achieved if all of the world's current population was organised so that everyone lived up to their potential and was doing something constructive instead of, what is the norm in cases, just trying to survive.

Larger groups require more and more layers of bureaucracy, which leads to greater and greater amounts of inefficiency. So, if the population increases, the likelihood of us ever reaching that potential would go down even if it didn't also lead to a constriction on resources.

It's a problem that more minds are harder to bring together in agreement. That's great when we're brainstorming for new ideas, but makes it difficult to actually get anything done when it comes time to implement one of those ideas.