Correlation Between Population Density and Freedom?

[attackfighter]

There was a period after the black plague when workers wanted more freedoms, and better pay, and could demand it because the pool of workers wasn't there for the landowners and gentry to create division and competition amongst.

In the United States workers enjoyed better living standards then their peers all over the world. The US also overthrew the shackles of colonialism under the guidance of libertarians who were very supporive of America being underpopulated (ie Thomas Jefferson).

Capitalism is fueled by manufactured scarcity. The Earth can sustain 20 billion humans according to most estimates, however we continue to suffer great disparity at a mere fraction of that number. In contrast to my earlier examples, China and other densly populated areas force citizens into sweatshops and slave labour because the workers are in abundance and possess no barganing chips.

You can look back in history and see that all oppressors desired greater populations; the British Empire maintained expensive colonies only to further it's imperial ambitions (the colonies were a net drain financially - especially in their latter days); the Roman Empire expanded to subjecate many nations, however the people of Rome often suffered more then those in the provinces; Egypt was the greatest of it's time with enough food to support more people then they could've imagined, yet it's great population provided nothing more then cheap labour for the Pharohs...

Even today there is a call for more labour. The USA, Canada, Australia, almost all of Europe - they all wish for higher populations. But why? Higher populations does not make for a better society; Canada posses more land then the US and a smaller population, yet the average annual income in Canada is more than 10k higher! The US even has 15 trillion annual income, but they are poorer then Canadians!

So my hypothosis is that the elite in our society are always trying to increase the population, at the detriment of the workers. This is why we captured slaves, built empires and imported masses of immigrants - it is to provide a few pennies for Bill Gates but a lifetime of misery for every other poor human...

What do you think?

P.S. this is the general idea for my college paper

 

[Louis XXIV]

Generally speaking, workers had more rights when they were more valued. That meant that societies where labor was plentiful meant they would have less rights. But that's certainly not consistent. There were certainly attempts to codify laws to keep labor working (codifying laws enforcing serfdom). My gut instinct is that this is such a broad thesis that you're bound to find countless examples where the exact opposite is true. Whether or not these refute your point or are exceptions that prove the rule would be really difficult to find out.

BTW, I don't think societies are necessarily trying to increase the population always, I think it's more that thriving societies happen to result in population increases. It's not a conscious decision to go out and oppress the common person. It's usually far more organic than that.

 

[Masada]

There was a period after the black plague when workers wanted more freedoms, and better pay, and could demand it because the pool of workers wasn't there for the landowners and gentry to create division and competition amongst.

Correct, the Black Death like most epidemics in history caused a decrease in the population. This had the fortunate, at least for the peasants, of raising wages by making workers relatively scarcer compared to capital and land. However, it was increased competition by landowners and gentry for the diminished labour force that allowed the peasants to demand better terms from their prospective employers. Assume that Landowner A has lost 70% of his workforce and in order to maintain, badly, just what he has now he needs to have at least 50% of his pre-plague workforce and not just the 30% he has now. He has a few options, he can wait for new labour to come online from his existing population which is slow, or he can attempt to induce some peasants from elsewhere to defect to his estate. Those peasants obviously won't willing go to an estate with worse conditions than the current one. Instead, the landowner will have to offer them an inducement to pack up their lives and move. Predictably with all the spare real-estate, in addition to land and movable goods -- plows, animals etc. -- he has a wide range of inducements he can offer. Assuming all his neighbors have suffered approximately the same amount of harm and require the same increase in labour to maintain their estates you can rapidly see how quickly it would degenerate into a bidding war as landowners fought to ensure that they would have a source of income in the future. This happened in parts of Europe that were particularly hard-hit by the plague. Often the nobility would, after realizing quite how destructive the bidding wars could be to their bottom line, enact with the Crowns connivance (or not) measures designed to prevent peasants leaving their estates. This sometimes worked but the systems of governance were not typically well suited to regulating the movements of people in the first place. This could be made substantially worse when the population movements were relatively large or when the plague had been particularly severe. The former tended to completely overwhelm the already systems already in place, while the second tended to have destroyed them.

In the United States workers enjoyed better living standards then their peers all over the world.

That was not a product of population density, instead that was a product of relative population scarcity coupled with abundant fertile land. Interesting if you remove the latter then the situation isn't so clear cut -- Australia outside of the Murray-Darling and the coastal east springs to mind. A new settler could reasonably expect to find sufficient fertile land to make a living at a reasonable (often nil) price. You will find most of the white settler societies -- Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc. -- had relatively high living conditions for just that reason, the effect of which diminished over time as increasingly marginal lands were bought under tillage usually with proportionally fewer people than had gone before (technology!).

Capitalism is fueled by manufactured scarcity. The Earth can sustain 20 billion humans according to most estimates, however we continue to suffer great disparity at a mere fraction of that number.

Well, I don't know about manufactured scarcity. Actually, lets not even bother with that angle. Also, carry capacity is quite distinct from what you seem to be suggesting.

In contrast to my earlier examples, China and other densly populated areas force citizens into sweatshops and slave labour because the workers are in abundance and possess no barganing chips.

The United States did that as well? It doesn't have much to do with population density really. It has more to do with the value of labour relative to capital and to a lesser extent land. The Netherlands is densely populated and yet it isn't, nor has it really ever, been famous for sweatshop labour nor slave labour. While the relatively less densely populated United Kingdom was renowned for it.

You can look back in history and see that all oppressors desired greater populations

Aside from oppressors being a loaded term there's a simple equation for tax in the pre-industrial world. Population = tax $. Therefore, the more population you have the more tax you can expect to extract.

the British Empire maintained expensive colonies only to further it's imperial ambitions (the colonies were a net drain financially - especially in their latter days)

The first part is subjective in the extreme, what were British Imperial ambitions? Also, true cost accounting and empirically false except in a handful of deliberate examples.

the Roman Empire expanded to subjecate many nations, however the people of Rome often suffered more then those in the provinces

Nations being an anachronism? Your point? Given that much of the Roman West, was for instance, not densely populated and even substantial swathes of the East were fairly lightly populated (Anatolia, Syria, the Balkans and Greece) during the early empire.

Egypt was the greatest of it's time with enough food to support more people then they could've imagined, yet it's great population provided nothing more then cheap labour for the Pharohs...

And? Payment in kind, instead of cash was almost universal at the time and right up until the last two centuries it was the dominant means of taxation. Even European states carried on with it till relatively late on, France till the Revolution etc.

Even today there is a call for more labour. The USA, Canada, Australia, almost all of Europe - they all wish for higher populations. But why? Higher populations does not make for a better society; Canada posses more land then the US and a smaller population, yet the average annual income in Canada is more than 10k higher! The US even has 15 trillion annual income, but they are poorer then Canadians!

The Reserve Bank of Australia in the sixties did some research into the relative merits of increasing Australia's population they found that the gains in terms of economies of scale as well as the increased scope for an internal market could potentially contribute to substantial improvements in Australia's long-term growth. A new report commissioned by the former government found that the rate of economic growth in Australia would increase by 1-2% if the population rose to 40 million in 2040. New Zealand has had similar findings in the past and in recent years.

This is not even noting that direct comparisons across countries in such generalized terms are absolutely without value. I would however suggest that Canada's mineral wealth probably accounts for a substantial part of that, as well as its proximity to a massive market right next door the United States. The second in a scenario again developed by the RBA showed that Australia's long term rate of economic growth would rise by 2-3% if we were located in the middle of the Atlantic between Europe and America.

So my hypothosis is that the elite in our society are always trying to increase the population, at the detriment of the workers.

Then why has population growth fallen in most of the world? Australia's is really one of the few exceptions, we're growing faster than we have in the past have only because we've opened our borders.

This is why we captured slaves, built empires and imported masses of immigrants - it is to provide a few pennies for Bill Gates but a lifetime of misery for every other poor human...

Wealth for the vast majority of human history was simply not a sure thing. Let alone living all that long. Long term planning of the kind you imply simply isn't feasible. Maybe in a tin-pot third world dictatorship but even then population increases tend to be autonomous and quite beyond the power of the state to regulate. Immigration isn't usually an issue either.

 

[Plotinus]

Even today there is a call for more labour. The USA, Canada, Australia, almost all of Europe - they all wish for higher populations.

What's your evidence for this? Sounds completely backwards to me. In Britain, at least, there are clearly too many people. In China, of course, they have been trying to reduce the population, or at least manage it, for decades. I think most densely populated countries are concerned not about increasing the population but about influencing demographics so that there is a greater proportion of educated and skilled workers as opposed to menial ones. Look at Singapore, for example, where the government actively encourages educated people to have children (and even has what is basically a government-run dating agency for graduates), not because it thinks there should be more people but because it wants its population to be competitive. Any country that simply wanted more people could get them easily by easing immigration controls. Yet the US and Canada, which you list as supposedly wanting higher populations, have very stringent immigration controls - especially Canada.

 

[Masada]

What's your evidence for this? Sounds completely backwards to me.

It's the truth for the antipodes. The current Australian Prime Minister is in favor of a 'Big Australia' of 40 million people by 2040. New Zealand is in much the same boat without some of the same official enthusiasm. In both cases population growth has broad bi-partisan support and has policies which are conducive to achieving those goals.

In Britain, at least, there are clearly too many people.

Yet, I would imagine that British immigration policy actively supports population growth? Even if conventional population growth (births less deaths) is close to zero.

I think most densely populated countries are concerned not about increasing the population but about influencing demographics so that there is a greater proportion of educated and skilled workers as opposed to menial ones.

I don't honestly know. I can't think of a single Southeast Asian state that has articulated and carried through a substantive set of policies aimed at achieving those goals. Although, to be fair, I think there are substantial policies which complement that aim even if they aren't specifically aimed at achieving it. Demographic manipulation is the poor cousin in the debate at the moment, the pace of economic growth and the changes in the economic profiles of states is happening at a speed that is simply beyond the capacity of longer term demographic manipulation to influence. Assuming that its feasible in the first place...

Yet the US and Canada, which you list as supposedly wanting higher populations, have very stringent immigration controls - especially Canada.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Australia has probably the most stringent requirements for immigration in the Western world and yet we are still inundated with applications to emigrate. Immigration despite these controls is by far the largest contributor to Australian population growth. If Australia closed immigration tomorrow population growth would decline below 0%. I think you will find that Canada is in the same boat. It has a strict system in place that still facilitates a substantial part of its population growth.

 

[say1988]

Canada posses more land then the US and a smaller population, yet the average annual income in Canada is more than 10k higher!

a) I would like to see a source on that. Everything I have seen is the other way around.
b) Canada may have more land, but the US almost certainly has more useful land.

 

[Dachs]

Capitalism is fueled by manufactured scarcity. The Earth can sustain 20 billion humans according to most estimates, however we continue to suffer great disparity at a mere fraction of that number. In contrast to my earlier examples, China and other densly populated areas force citizens into sweatshops and slave labour because the workers are in abundance and possess no barganing chips.

You can look back in history and see that all oppressors desired greater populations; the British Empire maintained expensive colonies only to further it's imperial ambitions (the colonies were a net drain financially - especially in their latter days); the Roman Empire expanded to subjecate many nations, however the people of Rome often suffered more then those in the provinces; Egypt was the greatest of it's time with enough food to support more people then they could've imagined, yet it's great population provided nothing more then cheap labour for the Pharohs...

 

[LightSpectra]

What Dachs said. Also:

 

[innonimatu]

Correct, the Black Death like most epidemics in history caused a decrease in the population. This had the fortunate, at least for the peasants, of raising wages by making workers relatively scarcer compared to capital and land. However, it was increased competition by landowners and gentry for the diminished labour force that allowed the peasants to demand better terms from their prospective employers. Assume that Landowner A has lost 70% of his workforce and in order to maintain, badly, just what he has now he needs to have at least 50% of his pre-plague workforce and not just the 30% he has now. He has a few options, he can wait for new labour to come online from his existing population which is slow, or he can attempt to induce some peasants from elsewhere to defect to his estate. Those peasants obviously won't willing go to an estate with worse conditions than the current one. Instead, the landowner will have to offer them an inducement to pack up their lives and move. Predictably with all the spare real-estate, in addition to land and movable goods -- plows, animals etc. -- he has a wide range of inducements he can offer. Assuming all his neighbors have suffered approximately the same amount of harm and require the same increase in labour to maintain their estates you can rapidly see how quickly it would degenerate into a bidding war as landowners fought to ensure that they would have a source of income in the future. This happened in parts of Europe that were particularly hard-hit by the plague. Often the nobility would, after realizing quite how destructive the bidding wars could be to their bottom line, enact with the Crowns connivance (or not) measures designed to prevent peasants leaving their estates. This sometimes worked but the systems of governance were not typically well suited to regulating the movements of people in the first place. This could be made substantially worse when the population movements were relatively large or when the plague had been particularly severe. The former tended to completely overwhelm the already systems already in place, while the second tended to have destroyed them.

It should also be said, about the aftermath of the Black Plague, that many people inherited from relatives who died and became able to support themselves without having to labor for others (apart from paying a local lord, the equivalent of today's taxes). The distribution of property changed, alleviating the situation of small landowners and increasing the shortage of labour for those who hired workers.

And this applies also to any modern reasoning about population and the situation of workers: the distribution of property matters more that the number of people.

 

[Lord Baal]

Shouldn't really have Alaska, Finland or Mongolia on that map if you're proving that capitalism hardly has a monopoly on exploiting large territories and populations.

Also, attackfighter, where in the name of all that is holy did you get an estimate of a sustainable human population of 20 billion?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are you suggesting that The Russian Empire was capitalist?

 

[rollo1066]

I don't thing there is much of a correlation between density of population and (political) freedom. In todays world a country with hign density of popuation (China) can lack political freedom or have it (Japan/India). Also a low density population can be democratic (Canada) or not (arguably Russia but some other former Soviet Republics might have similiarly low density of popuation and have less freedom than Russia). I didn't list the USA since I consider it to have medium population density.

 

[Earthling]

The US wants more white people, by and large, that's the difference Plotinus. But public sentiment certainly has a lot of leanings that way.

 

[Tee Kay]

The US wants more white people

 

[aelf]

Look at Singapore, for example, where the government actively encourages educated people to have children (and even has what is basically a government-run dating agency for graduates), not because it thinks there should be more people but because it wants its population to be competitive.

Ah, but this is coupled with a conscious or not-so-conscious decision to keep immigrants from poorer countries coming. A society of pencil pushers still needs labour to produce the goods and services it needs and at reasonable cost. Therefore, whether they want to or not, there is going to be a parallel drive to increase the availability of cheaper labour to support the demographic shift as more and more locals exit the less financially lucrative job sectors.

 

[Traitorfish]

the British Empire maintained expensive colonies only to further it's imperial ambitions (the colonies were a net drain financially - especially in their latter days)

What does this have to do with your hypothesis, exactly? If you refer to the African colonies- the Indian colonies being incredibly valuable- then population has little to do with it, because those countries were severely underpopulated by European standards. That's the very reason that they were a financial drain. It may have granted the empire an overall gain in population, but that, in itself, is worth very little to any budding tyrant if it cannot be utilised to support their regime. Why do you think that the ruling class of the Scottish Highlands 18th century was so happy to actively deplete the regions population in favour of sheep farming? A a dozen crofters was of less use to them than a single sheep farmer, so they were quite happy for their tenants to be exiled to Canada and the Lowlands in their thousands.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The US wants more white people, by and large, that's the difference Plotinus. But public sentiment certainly has a lot of leanings that way.

Was playing the race card really necessary?

 

[Lord Baal]

Was playing the race card really necessary?

He was pointing out what the US wants. I don't think he's inaccurate. The same applies over here. The government and people want them white, or at least rich, if not both.

 

[Dachs]

He is inaccurate; the United States is demonstrably not Australia.

 

[Masada]

The bulk of Australian immigrants for the last two decades have been Asian, and well New Zealanders.