filc: Increased labor does increase productivity. Capital aside. This is the fundamental premise of the division of labor and of Ricardo's law. 4 hands are better then 2. 2 men can produce more efficiently then 1.
Increased labor does increase productivity. Capital aside. This is the fundamental premise of the division of labor and of Ricardo's law. 4 hands are better then 2.
2 men can produce more efficiently then 1.
You can't just claim "capital aside". In reality we have scarce capital, and 1,000,000 hands working the same capital as 1000 will get much lesser pay and less work, if they are not outright unemployed.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Byzantine: And I will ask for the third time: how do you propose to get rid of the welfare state when it continually imports new constituents?
And I will ask for the third time: how do you propose to get rid of the welfare state when it continually imports new constituents?
I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean "it" continually "imports new constituents"? Do you mean how do we get rid of the welfare state with immigration? I'm not sure how the two are connected. I'm also not sure why the question matters. If you think it is unrealistic that the welfare state is abolished then that's one thing, but my original comment had to do with why Ron Paul may not support free immigration given the fact that we do live in a welfare state. Then Stephen started to comment that immigration is bad even without the welfare state, which is patently false.
Arguing whether removing the welfare state is plausible is completely tangential and really irrelevant.
Stranger: You can't just claim "capital aside". In reality we have scarce capital, and 1,000,000 hands working the same capital as 1000 will get much lesser pay and less work, if they are not outright unemployed.
Theoretically, in a free market with no minimum wage and other regulations, the argument is that there will always be entrepreneurs looking to establish new businesses or expanding existing businesses, and so marginal profitability per worker will always be increasing or at least not decreasing (over the long-run). So yes, while 1,001 hands working on X capital may be less efficient than 1,000 hands, the amount of capital is never static (it should continue to increase, as that is a general definition of an increase in wealth) and so an increasing pool of labor promises more productivity.
Stranger: filc: Increased labor does increase productivity. Capital aside. This is the fundamental premise of the division of labor and of Ricardo's law. 4 hands are better then 2. 2 men can produce more efficiently then 1. You can't just claim "capital aside". In reality we have scarce capital, and 1,000,000 hands working the same capital as 1000 will get much lesser pay and less work, if they are not outright unemployed.
Thats true, but we are talking about a situation where labor is in demand, not in withdrawal. Not sure if you noticed that.
If we are overpopulated however that would place further pressure on the entrepreneur and creativity of man to further economize what we have. Ultimately I am not sure what point your trying to make. You arn't refuting or promoting ricardo's law. Your statements are really besides the point of the OT. I am not sure if your just fishing for a dispute or what.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Stranger: You can't just claim "capital aside". In reality we have scarce capital, and 1,000,000 hands working the same capital as 1000 will get much lesser pay and less work, if they are not outright unemployed. Theoretically, in a free market with no minimum wage and other regulations, the argument is that there will always be entrepreneurs looking to establish new businesses or expanding existing businesses, and so marginal profitability per worker will always be increasing or at least not decreasing (over the long-run). So yes, while 1,001 hands working on X capital may be less efficient than 1,000 hands, the amount of capital is never static (it should continue to increase, as that is a general definition of an increase in wealth) and so an increasing pool of labor promises more productivity.
None of this requires immigration to achieve, as capital is mobile and can be moved where the labor is.
Living space on the other hand is much more difficult to accumulate, in some mountainous regions like Switzerland, for example, all of the land is intensively inhabited. You can't add more land, hence every additional immigrant puts more pressure on it. This creates social tensions, requiring more police and controls, and reduces the living standard.
Stranger:None of this requires immigration to achieve, as capital is mobile and can be moved where the labor is.
If it had been more efficient to move capital to labor then that is what would had happened. But again what point exactly are you making?
Byzantine:The welfare state enlarges itself through immigrants. More people = more tax fodder or, what is actually the case, more net tax consumers. Also, more vehicular traffic, utility loads, inter-ethnic conflict, etc., all of which the government uses to justify its continued existence
No welfare enlarges itself with or without immigrants. The drive to achieve socialism in this country is not being spearheaded by immigrants. They are leaving an economically oppressed state in most situations and politically apathetic. Socialism and it's welfare is being pushed by middle income america. You have asserted this several times now, that immigrants are the soul reason we have welfare. It is entirely false and quiet frankly makes you look desperate for making such an outrageous claim.
Byzantine:Your statement begs for qualification. Not all immigration is good, because your new neighbors could be an itinerant criminal gang or carry communicable diseases.
Fallacy of composition. Not all people are good in general. It has nothing to do with whether or not your an immigrant. There are domestic criminals to, or did you forget?
Byzantine:Not true.
It is true. Praxeologically speaking. If it had made more sense for capital to move instead of people in general we would have observed that. Since it's the other way around we have to assume the owners of that capital thought differently.
Byzantine: Government-sponsored immigration
What?
Byzantine:You need to address the rest of my post.
It doesn't make sense. And I'm not to worried about it tbh. FYI I found some articles to share in a bit showing the correlation of immigrant numbers subsiding after the housing bubble burst. I'll post it in a bit.
Byzantine:The welfare state enlarges itself through immigrants.
Byzantine:And no, I never said immigrants are the sole reason we have welfare. You are getting hysterical.
I don't know of anyone getting hysterical. I am just trying to understand your choice of wording in some of your statements.
filc: Stranger:None of this requires immigration to achieve, as capital is mobile and can be moved where the labor is. If it had been more efficient to move capital to labor then that is what would had happened. But again what point exactly are you making?
It is made less efficient, artificially, through trade restrictions.
Stranger: None of this requires immigration to achieve, as capital is mobile and can be moved where the labor is.
And labor can move where capital is. Immigration bases itself on the availability of opportunities in different geographical locations, which is dependent on the movement of capital, so this statement has no bearing on what I said.
Areas in which productivity is decreasing will not attract immigration, so I'm not sure how this is even a problem. Immigration is not arbitrary, and nobody here (I don't think) ever argued it was.
The welfare state enlarges itself through immigrants. More people = more tax fodder or, what is actually the case, more net tax consumers. Also, more vehicular traffic, utility loads, inter-ethnic conflict, etc., all of which the government uses to justify its continued existence
Okay, but again, we are assuming an end to the welfare state, so I'm not sure how this comment is relevant.
Your statement begs for qualification. Not all immigration is good, because your new neighbors could be an itinerant criminal gang or carry communicable diseases.
Unless it infringes on your property rights, I'm not sure you would have a moral right to deny someone else of occupying property near you. And, border security cannot efficiently scan for these type of "undesirables", so the idea that controlled borders can efficiently secure against "undesirables" fails to hold.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Areas in which productivity is decreasing will not attract immigration, so I'm not sure how this is even a problem.
Totally incorrect. Immigration will continue as long as productivity in destination area is higher than origin area, no matter how fast productivity is dropping.
This is not going to be much consolation to the inhabitants whose productivity is collapsing while their country is being ruined.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Theoretically, in a free market with no minimum wage and other regulations, the argument is that there will always be entrepreneurs looking to establish new businesses or expanding existing businesses, and so marginal profitability per worker will always be increasing or at least not decreasing (over the long-run). So yes, while 1,001 hands working on X capital may be less efficient than 1,000 hands, the amount of capital is never static (it should continue to increase, as that is a general definition of an increase in wealth) and so an increasing pool of labor promises more productivity.
Average living standards depend on productivity per capita, not total productivity (edit). And from the law of returns, there is some optimal level which maximizes this all other things being equal.
Stranger:Totally incorrect. Immigration will continue as long as productivity in destination area is higher than origin area, no matter how fast productivity is dropping.
Jonathan's statement is correct. All things being equal immigrants will choose a location that they speculate will yield the highest amount of success and opportunity. You have to remember that there are choices. It's not Honduras to America. It's South Tegucigalpa to Sacramento, or San Pedro Sula to Houston Texas.
There are specific destinations with specific opportunities. Immigrants will naturally migrate to the ones that have the greatest demand for labor.
So the option is not chosen between A and B.
To Stay or to Go
But between A and B through Z.
A to Stay, B through Z are potential destinations. All 25 possibilities might be better then his current location but it would be in his best interest the location where the demand for labor is highest as opposed to lowest.
Stranger: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Areas in which productivity is decreasing will not attract immigration, so I'm not sure how this is even a problem. Totally incorrect. Immigration will continue as long as productivity in destination area is higher than origin area, no matter how fast productivity is dropping. This is not going to be much consolation to the inhabitants whose productivity is collapsing while their country is being ruined.
Exactly. Even though an area may be absolutely overpopulated, it may be relatively underpopulated. And given that higher wage areas tend to be locations where populations control is practiced more rigorously, there will always be pressure for migration from lower wage areas, whether the higher wage population wants it or not.
Stephen:Exactly. Even though an area may be absolutely overpopulated,
If overpopulated means high amounts of labor with little need then it wouldn't follow that large volumes of immigrants would choose that destination as a feasible option for migration. Unless ofcoarse there are heavy incentives involved via welfare.
Stephen is your problem with the immigrant or with the Social expense they bring when they participate in the welfare system while not paying.
filc: Stranger:Totally incorrect. Immigration will continue as long as productivity in destination area is higher than origin area, no matter how fast productivity is dropping. Jonathan's statement is correct. All things being equal immigrants will choose a location that they speculate will yield the highest amount of success and opportunity.
Jonathan's statement is correct. All things being equal immigrants will choose a location that they speculate will yield the highest amount of success and opportunity.
No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The immigrants will move to the area which yields the highest income for themselves, regardless of what this does to the income of the domestic population.
Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The
Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand?
Please explain the reasoning behind this.
And yes, Jonathan is entirely correct. In the market economy consumers/producers are attracted to each other. They don't repel each other. Is it that difficult to understand that if I want to sell something that I would be attracted to a location where there are potential buyers? As opposed to moving to a place where there are no potential buyers for my service?
Information regarding the activity of immigration after the housing bubble.
Mises Articles
FYI it took me all of about 30 seconds to pull up those articles. Enjoy.
filc: Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand? Please explain the reasoning behind this. And yes, Jonathan is entirely correct. In the market economy consumers/producers are attracted to each other. They don't repel each other. Is it that difficult to understand that if I want to sell something that I would be attracted to a location where there are potential buyers? As opposed to moving to a place where there are no potential buyers for my service?
Let me use a diagram to help explain.
Here we have a diagram illustrating the Malthusian law of population, a special form of the law of returns. Holding all other factors equal, there exists an optimal level of population which maximizes the productivity per person. This level is Q. If the population level is less than Q, there is underpopulation, since living standards could be increased by the addition of more people. If it is greater than Q, there is overpopulation. Both points, R and S, are points at which there is absolute overpopulation. However, R is relatively under populated with respect to S. If there are two geographic location which are equal in all respects except for population, one having a population level of R and the other of S, then there will be an incentive for part of population S to migrate to the same location as population R. This will raise the living standards of the immigrants. It will also lower the living standards of the host population.
filc: Byzantine:Your statement begs for qualification. Not all immigration is good, because your new neighbors could be an itinerant criminal gang or carry communicable diseases. Fallacy of composition. Not all people are good in general. It has nothing to do with whether or not your an immigrant. There are domestic criminals to, or did you forget?
And one of the most effective ways of protecting yourself is by separating yourself from security risks. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals, one reduces one's risk of being victimized. It works the same intranationally as it does internationally.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Then Stephen started to comment that immigration is bad even without the welfare state, which is patently false.
I didn't say that it "immigration is bad." I said that the welfare state is not solely responsible for the immigration problem. I never implied that immigration in general is a problem, just that it can be.
Do you expect anyone to take that graph seriously?
The Malthusian law is incorrect. You give it more weight then was meant to be used for. In some cases it can be a tool that tells us there is a concentration of labor where there is no current demand. That labor needs be dispatched elsewhere or it's price adjusted to balance with demand.
If there is an overabundance of labor in an area, which caues overpopulation, people will naturally move away on their own. It is not likely that overpopulated areas are going to experience heavy influx's of immigration. Typically overpopulated areas experience emigration.
If no option to emigrate exists then market will have a natural demand for entrepreneur to employ their creative innovations by making production more more efficient. The Malthusian law does not take into account that consumption is dynamic and changes and that people can freely move to more suitable locations.
The entire premise and concept of the malthusian law is flawed. If it were true we should have been dead as a species at population 1 billion X hundred years ago. The law fails to take into account human action. In short it fails to account for technology.
Your essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance.
On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying. Despite that this is the opposite of what the market does, your saying that people have incentives to be attracted to overpopulated depressed areas, and repelled to areas where there is signifigant demand for labor and growth.
John Chamberlain: In conclusion, the Malthusian problem is one that economics solves. No wonder the Malthusians want to get rid of economics.
In conclusion, the Malthusian problem is one that economics solves. No wonder the Malthusians want to get rid of economics.
http://mises.org/daily/1675
Your argument is in direct conflict with fundamental mechanics of the market. Also you have yet to answer me these questions. Please answer them.
filc:Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand?
filc: Stephen is your problem with the immigrant or with the Social expense they bring when they participate in the welfare system while not paying. -------------------- Stephen:And one of the most effective ways of protecting yourself is by separating yourself from security risks. I am sorry you live in a state of un-justified fear but there are those of us who do not beleive in fairy tails and who stand to gain by trading with our neighbors. Who are you to judge us by those actions? It is very difficult to reason with fear. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26brfs-STUDYOFIMMIG_BRF.html?_r=1&ref=us
--------------------
Stephen:And one of the most effective ways of protecting yourself is by separating yourself from security risks.
I am sorry you live in a state of un-justified fear but there are those of us who do not beleive in fairy tails and who stand to gain by trading with our neighbors. Who are you to judge us by those actions? It is very difficult to reason with fear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26brfs-STUDYOFIMMIG_BRF.html?_r=1&ref=us
I just re read the below statement and it shows that you conceded your point, though not realizing it.
Stephen:The immigrants will move to the area which yields the highest income for themselves, regardless of what this does to the income of the domestic population.
So in other words immigrants won't move to an overpopulated city where they are likely to be unemployed for half a year or more. But instead would choose a city where they will yield the highest income. This is essentially what I have been saying. Your statement above is a great explanation or why immigrants would not choose the overpopulated destination. They would either be unable to find work or due to the surplus in labor their wages would be very low.
I was never arguing against that immigrants would move to a location where they would be unable to find any opportunity. You just misunderstood the point.
filc: Stephen:And one of the most effective ways of protecting yourself is by separating yourself from security risks. I am sorry you live in a state of un-justified fear but there are those of us who do not beleive in fairy tails and who stand to gain by trading with our neighbors. Who are you to judge us by those actions? It is very difficult to reason with fear. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26brfs-STUDYOFIMMIG_BRF.html?_r=1&ref=us
I choose not to live in a ghetto. And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live. I think it's very rational. Most people also act on similar irrational fears. Curious.
I would like to know where the New York Times found their statistics. I can't find anything reliable or detailed that shows latin crime rates in the U.S. The FBI crime stats only break down into the categories Black, White, and Other. The best I can do is look at crime rates in different countries: here, here, and here. Mexico's homicide rate is almost double that in the U.S. But luckily I found this VDARE article which contains a link to data on incarceration by race. hispanic incarceration is a little over 3.5 times that of non-hispanic whites.
The majority of immigrants don't live nor do they form ghetto's. Many of which work in rural area's on farms or housing projects.
Try finding statistics not on VDARE, and no you cannot compare apples to oranges. The country comparison is irrelevant in this topic as it's results are caused by other factors.
Stephen: I was never arguing against that immigrants would move to a location where they would be unable to find any opportunity. You just misunderstood the point.
Stranger: Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Areas in which productivity is decreasing will not attract immigration, so I'm not sure how this is even a problem. Totally incorrect. Immigration will continue as long as productivity in destination area is higher than origin area, no matter how fast productivity is dropping.
Here Stranger says that areas with decreased productivity would attract immigrants over areas with increased productivity. Makes no sense to me.
Stephen:Exactly. Even though an area may be absolutely overpopulated, it may be relatively underpopulated. And given that higher wage areas tend to be locations where populations control is practiced more rigorously, there will always be pressure for migration from lower wage areas, whether the higher wage population wants it or not.
Here you agreed.
To which I explained again in response. I dont think you read many of my statements as your ignoring all of my questions.
filc:Jonathan's statement is correct. All things being equal immigrants will choose a location that they speculate will yield the highest amount of success and opportunity. You have to remember that there are choices.
filc: Stephen:Exactly. Even though an area may be absolutely overpopulated, If overpopulated means high amounts of labor with little need then it wouldn't follow that large volumes of immigrants would choose that destination as a feasible option for migration. Unless ofcoarse there are heavy incentives involved via welfare.
filc: Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand? Please explain the reasoning behind this.
You never explained this, just conveniently skipped over it.
filc:And yes, Jonathan is entirely correct. In the market economy consumers/producers are attracted to each other. They don't repel each other. Is it that difficult to understand that if I want to sell something that I would be attracted to a location where there are potential buyers? As opposed to moving to a place where there are no potential buyers for my service?
filc: our essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance. On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying.
our essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance.
On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying.
Stephen:Here we have a diagram illustrating the Malthusian law of population
To which has been refuted not just by Austrian's but everyone else that uses a little common sense.
So if you agree then you will concede the point that Producers and Consumers attract. Immigrants will flow in the direction of need of labor.
Stephen:I didn't say that it "immigration is bad." I said that the welfare state is not solely responsible for the immigration problem. I never implied that immigration in general is a problem, just that it can be.
But you have been consistently implying that immigrants are the problem over and over.
Stephen:. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals,
So immigrants are all criminals
Stephen:I choose not to live in a ghetto.
Stephen:And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live.
So immigrants only live in the ghetto, and they bring the ghettos with them
------------------
Do you realize that VDARE is often categorized as a white supremacist website? Thats like me pulling stats off the black panthers page, do you realize that it discredits your whole defense?
Vdare FAQ Page:We do publish writers who could fairly be described as “white nationalists,” in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites
Pulled it right off their page
The point is, find a more neutral source.
Still I have no doubts that you can. Statistics is not about finding truths but instead about discovering a series of variables which best suit your argument.
Do you understand the reason for the principle of charitable interpretation in a debate?
Caley McKibbin: Do you expect anyone to take that graph seriously?
Yes. In particular if they understand basic economics and are able to follow a chain of logical reasoning, then I expect them to take it seriously.
As far as the law of population.
Human Action: Quantitative definiteness in the effects brought about by an economic good means with regard to the goods of the first order (consumers' goods): a quantity a of cause brings about?--either once and for all or piecemeal over a definite period of time?--a quantity {a} of effect. With regard to the goods of the higher orders (producers' goods) it means: a quantity b of cause brings about a quantity {B} of effect, provided the complementary cause c contributes the quantity {y} of effect; only the concerted effects {B} and {y} bring about the quantity p of the good of the first order D. There are in this case three quantities: b and c of the two complementary goods B and C, and p of the product D. With b remaining unchanged, we call that value of c which results in the highest value of p/c the optimum. If several values of c result in this highest value of p/c, then we call that the optimum which results [p. 128] also in the highest value of p. If the two complementary goods are employed in the optimal ratio, they both render the highest output; their power to produce, their objective use?-value, is fully utilized; no fraction of them is wasted. If we deviate from this optimal combination by increasing the quantity of C without changing the quantity of B, the return will as a rule increase further, but not in proportion to the increase in the quantity of C. If it is at all possible to increase the return from p to p1 by increasing the quantity of one of the complementary factors only, namely by substituting cx for c, x being greater than 1, we have at any rate:p1>p and p1c<pcx. For if it were possible to compensate any decrease in b by a corresponding increase in c in such a way that p remains unchanged, the physical power of production proper to B would be unlimited and B would not be considered as scarce and as an economic good. It would be of no importance for acting man whether the supply of B available were greater or smaller. Even an infinitesimal quantity of B would be sufficient for the production of any quantity of D, provided the supply of C is large enough. On the other hand, an increase in the quantity of B available could not increase the output of D if the supply of C does not increase. The total return of the process would be imputed to C; B could not be an economic good. A thing rendering such unlimited services is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use?-value of a known formula and any other useful thing. The law of returns asserts that for the combination of economic goods of the higher orders (factors of production) there exists an optimum. If one deviates from this optimum by increasing the input of only one of the factors, the physical output either does not increase at all or at least not in the ratio of the increased input. This law, as has been demonstrated above, is implied in the fact that the quantitative definiteness of the effects brought about by any economic good is a necessary condition of its being an economic good.
Quantitative definiteness in the effects brought about by an economic good means with regard to the goods of the first order (consumers' goods): a quantity a of cause brings about?--either once and for all or piecemeal over a definite period of time?--a quantity {a} of effect. With regard to the goods of the higher orders (producers' goods) it means: a quantity b of cause brings about a quantity {B} of effect, provided the complementary cause c contributes the quantity {y} of effect; only the concerted effects {B} and {y} bring about the quantity p of the good of the first order D. There are in this case three quantities: b and c of the two complementary goods B and C, and p of the product D.
With b remaining unchanged, we call that value of c which results in the highest value of p/c the optimum. If several values of c result in this highest value of p/c, then we call that the optimum which results [p. 128] also in the highest value of p. If the two complementary goods are employed in the optimal ratio, they both render the highest output; their power to produce, their objective use?-value, is fully utilized; no fraction of them is wasted. If we deviate from this optimal combination by increasing the quantity of C without changing the quantity of B, the return will as a rule increase further, but not in proportion to the increase in the quantity of C. If it is at all possible to increase the return from p to p1 by increasing the quantity of one of the complementary factors only, namely by substituting cx for c, x being greater than 1, we have at any rate:p1>p and p1c<pcx. For if it were possible to compensate any decrease in b by a corresponding increase in c in such a way that p remains unchanged, the physical power of production proper to B would be unlimited and B would not be considered as scarce and as an economic good. It would be of no importance for acting man whether the supply of B available were greater or smaller. Even an infinitesimal quantity of B would be sufficient for the production of any quantity of D, provided the supply of C is large enough. On the other hand, an increase in the quantity of B available could not increase the output of D if the supply of C does not increase. The total return of the process would be imputed to C; B could not be an economic good. A thing rendering such unlimited services is, for instance, the knowledge of the causal relation implied. The formula, the recipe that teaches us how to prepare coffee, provided it is known, renders unlimited services. It does not lose anything from its capacity to produce however often it is used; its productive power is inexhaustible; it is therefore not an economic good. Acting man is never faced with a situation in which he must choose between the use?-value of a known formula and any other useful thing.
The law of returns asserts that for the combination of economic goods of the higher orders (factors of production) there exists an optimum. If one deviates from this optimum by increasing the input of only one of the factors, the physical output either does not increase at all or at least not in the ratio of the increased input. This law, as has been demonstrated above, is implied in the fact that the quantitative definiteness of the effects brought about by any economic good is a necessary condition of its being an economic good.
And further down:
The Malthusian law of population and the concepts of absolute overpopulation and under-population and optimum population derived from it are the application of the law of returns to a special problem. They deal with changes in the supply of human labor, other factors being equal. Because people, for political considerations, wanted to reject the Malthusiam law, they fought with passion but with faulty arguments against the law of returns?--which, incidentally, they knew only as the law of diminishing returns of the use of capital and labor on land. Today we no longer need to pay any attention to these idle remonstrances. The law of returns is not limited to the use of complementary factors of production on land. The endeavors to refute or to demonstrate its validity by historical and experimental investigations of agricultural production are as needless as they are [p. 130] vain. He who wants to reject the law would have to explain why people are ready to pay prices for land. If the law were not valid, a farmer would never consider expanding the size of his farm. He would be in a position to multiply indefinitely the return of any piece of soil by multiplying his input of capital and labor.
emphasis mine.