[jtuple]

I know this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek and not serious, but still fun to mull over.

IMO, main issue is the assumption that GDP/capita is independent of population size.

I suspect most economies would hit a saturating point where most people are underemployed and there's no productive work left for new entrants.

While South Korea shrinking 1/4x each generation is bad, growing 4x would probably also be bad.

Seems like the best case would be hitting some optimal population size + age distribution then maintaining that each generation -- not shrinking but also not growing.

[toast0]

> I suspect most economies would hit a saturating point where most people are underemployed and there's no productive work left for new entrants.

I don't know if that's actually true. When you have more people, you likely need more construction to house them, and more restaurants for them to eat at, and more shops for them to shop at, etc. And more delivery drivers, etc. That's not to say a mass of people is enough to form a thriving economy... I think there does need to be some core product or service or some of the people are contributing to or a resource they're harvesting, because the economy either needs to be self sufficient or be able to exchange something of value for the inputs it needs.

It's really hard to measure, of course.

[jldugger]

> I know this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek and not serious

I honestly can't tell if it is, or if it is satire, what it thinks the object of ridicule is.