A shortage or miss allocation of workers?

Several reasons are usually given to support boosting the UK population - including a perceived shortage of workers or a need to offset an aging population. Yet is this correct? Instead do we have a miss allocation of workers. Could we run the economy better by reducing the share of those in unsustainable sectors - air travel for example. What about the impact of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) on the workforce?

Why more people?

A number of reasons are put forward in favour of population growth -

the need to offset an aging population with the workforce making up a smaller proportion of the population;

to ensure the population does not decline;

attracting high value workers to boost high tech sectors;

increasing the number of care workers.

Reasons against

A major objection to increasing the population is the impact on resources.

the UK imports half of its food;

there are dangers of water shortages, particularly with climate breakdown;

a lack of land for more development.

Growth through population increase is not the solution to economic problems. Its the same as a 'ponzi' scheme, more people now to offset an aging population followed by more in the future to do the same as the new population ages.

Some options

1) Automation - increasing automation is likely to reduce the number of workers in some sectors - releasing them for other jobs.

2) Re-allocation of workers - there are sectors which could be scaled back as part of a process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - airport and ancillary activities are a case in point.

3) Transferring people from the economically inactive to the economically active category.

4) reducing the number of part-time staff;

5) enabling more people over the pension age to continue in employment - largely on a part-time basis.

All of these options would need investment - in training and also in health services to enable people currently inactive to return to the workforce.

Conclusion

There are alternatives to simply continuing with population growth, the options may be challenging but feasible.