Busting the Population Boom Myth: Why Mass Immigration Won't Magically Fuel Your Economy, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

Folks, if you've been tuned into the endless immigration circus, you've heard the siren song from the pro-growth crowd: "More people equals more prosperity! Let the third-world masses flood in, they'll flip burgers, deliver your DoorDash, and voila, natives climb the ladder to high-skill jobs, specialisation skyrockets, and the economy hums like a well-oiled machine." It's the go-to retort when hard data slaps them with the fiscal black hole of low-skill migration. Take Lyman Stone, the demography darling who's all in on boosting numbers through babies and borders. He argues we need "more babies, more immigrants, more integration" to keep America "larger, stronger, richer," painting population growth as the secret sauce for economic dominance. Stone's even floated the idea that immigrants slashing costs for household services could indirectly spike birth rates, talk about speculative fairy dust!

But here's the cold shower: Population size has nothing to do with a country's wealth or development. It's human capital, the smarts, skills, and productivity of your people, that calls the shots. And when you import masses from low-human-capital regions, you're not juicing the economy; you're draining it. This isn't xenophobic hot air; it's backed by data that the growth hawks conveniently ignore. Let's dissect their fantasies, armed with real-world correlations, fiscal facts, and a healthy dose of scepticism toward those "higher-order effects" they wave like a magic wand.

The Fiscal Fiasco: Low-Skill Immigrants as Budget Black Holes

Start with the basics: When critics like Emil Kirkegaard point to the eye-watering negative fiscal contributions of third-world migrants, think lifelong welfare draws outpacing paltry tax inputs, the pro-growth brigade pivots to "but the economy as a whole benefits!" They claim migrants free up natives for better gigs, sparking trade and specialisation that lifts all boats. Nice theory, but where's the facts?

Reality check: Studies from Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, and the U.S. crunch the numbers on taxes paid versus benefits received, and the verdict's grim. These "net fiscal impact" models, which tally everything from education to healthcare, show low-skill immigrants as consistent drains. In the U.S., for instance, immigrants are often net fiscal negatives, paying less in taxes than they consume in services, especially when you factor in education for their kids and long-term entitlements. Even the Manhattan Institute's 2025 update admits that while some immigrants boost the federal budget, many categories, hello, low-skilled arrivals, do the opposite.

And those "higher-order" perks? Pure speculation. Sure, migrants might deliver your pizza cheaper, but they could also erode cultural norms, spike crime (extra policing costs), or dilute democracy, externalities that don't show up in basic budgets, but hammer productivity. If a group's a fiscal loser, odds are they're an economic drag too, as governments plug deficits with taxes, debt, or inflation that kneecap everyone else's output. The OECD echoes this: While immigrants can fill labour gaps and boost revenues in host countries, the net effect often hovers below 1% of GDP, and that's for the rosy scenarios. For third-world inflows? More like a red ink tsunami.

Population Size: The Non-Factor in National Success

Now, the big myth: Bigger populations drive growth through scale, more trade, more specialisation, more everything. If that held water, mega-pop nations like India or Nigeria would be economic juggernauts, and tiny Singapore or Luxembourg would be backwaters. Spoiler: They're not.

Global data paints a stark picture. Correlations between population size and key metrics like GDP per capita, productivity (GDP per hours worked), or socioeconomic scores? Zilch, or even negative. One study of 111 countries from 1960-2019 found no clear causal link pushing growth via population swells. Another nails it: "There is no evidence that population growth drives per capita economic growth in developed economies." In fact, population growth often negatively ties to GDP per capita, as resources stretch thin without quality boosts.

Regressions controlling for IQ (a proxy for human capital) and spatial confounders? Population size predicts nada positive—often negative across models for GDP per capita PPP and productivity. Even Bayesian model averaging on growth predictors ranks population dead last. And population density vs. prosperity? Our World in Data's graphs show no upward trend, dense spots like Dhaka lag, while sparse powerhouses like Australia thrive.

If scale was king, why do small nations punch above their weight? Human capital, in short. Education, health, and skills fuel growth far more than headcount. A dataset weighting population by human capital shows that quality trumps quantity for development projections through 2100. Mass immigration from low-capital sources? It dilutes the average, not elevates it.

The Speculative Smoke Screen: Higher-Order Effects Exposed

Pro-growthers love their "coulds": Migrants could spark innovation, could enable specialisation. But "could" cuts both ways, population bloat could bog down governance, breed inequality, or stall infrastructure. Historical reshuffles (wars, splits like Czechoslovakia) are messy to study, but time-series data on growth shows no pop-driven boon. Even aging populations? Growth persists if human capital invests smartly, decline doesn't doom you to stagnation.

Stone's vision of immigrants as fertility boosters via cheap services? Cute, but unproven, and ignores how low-skill inflows depress wages, strain schools, and fuel backlash that fragments society. The IMF notes tightening borders has ripple effects, but loose ones invite fiscal hits elsewhere. Bottom line: No robust evidence mass immigration nets per capita gains for natives. It's hand-waving over hard data.

The Human Capital Hammer: Quality Over Quantity

Global inequality isn't random, it's human capital mapped. High-IQ, skilled societies soar; pop-heavy low-capital ones sputter. Harvard's David Bloom ties demographics to growth via human capital shifts, not sheer numbers. IIASA's projections? Sub-national education and skills dictate futures, not raw population. Flooding with low-skill migrants? You're betting on miracles while data screams "dilution ahead."

Patriots, the pro-growth gospel is a Trojan horse for open borders. More bodies don't make magic, smart, productive citizens do. Ditch the myths, demand data-driven policy, and prioritise quality immigration that builds, not burdens.

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/population-size-is-not-important -