George Plumb: Poverty & population

Editor’s note: This commentary is by George Plumb, the executive director of Vermonters for Sustainable Population.

2014 marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s “unconditional war on poverty.” For most of that time, and indeed to this day, economists often say that the best way to improve our economy is to grow the population because that creates more consumers and therefore more demand for goods and services including construction of new homes, more shopping places, and larger places for recreation like ski resorts.

It turns out however that growing the population doesn’t decrease poverty. This is well documented in the recently added 16th indicator for the world-precedent-setting “What is an Optimal/Sustainable Population for Vermont?” report which can be read at . The indicator shows that even though Vermont’s population has increased by a huge 50 percent since the War on Poverty began in 1964, the poverty level hasn’t decreased at all but has remained approximately the same at 12 percent.

Vermonters for Sustainable Population

Vermonters for Sustainable Population

Economists, and even political leaders, developers, and some environmentalist, also usually say that we can grow the economy while protecting the environment which scientific data trends for everything from water pollution to generation of greenhouse gas emissions has proven to be a totally false claim.

While there are several ways to measure economic well-being including GDP and median income adjusted for inflation, poverty is the most important measure because as Aristotle said, “The greatest measure of a society is the way it treats its weakest members.” The signs of poverty are all around us, including the increase in people staying in homeless shelters, the number of Vermonters on food stamps which in June of 2013 was a record high level of over 100,000 or one out of every six persons, the demand in local food shelves, people with signs begging for money, and deteriorated homes in our cities, villages and countryside.

The signs of poverty are all around us, including the increase in people staying in homeless shelters, the number of Vermonters on food stamps, the demand in local food shelves, people with signs begging for money, and deteriorated homes in our cities, villages and countryside.


It’s time for economists and political leaders to stop saying that we have to grow the population in order to grow the economy. Not only does it not reduce poverty levels it also means more people competing for jobs and as a result even lower wages forcing people to work longer hours. When I was just starting out in my professional career in the ’60s, there were usually only a handful of people at the most applying for any given position. Now, as younger people will verify, it is not at all unusual to have at least a hundred people applying for the same job opening.

The author of the Poverty Indicator in the report is Eben Fodor who is also the author of the book “Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community.” In concluding this indicator Eben states that, “Because there are so many variables, it is very difficult to predict what an optimum/sustainable population would be to minimize or eliminate poverty. If we were to go by the historical fact that Vermont’s lowest recorded poverty rate was in 1970, when the population was 444,330, then the optimum population might be lower than it is today.

“A stable population level has been shown to have higher levels of individual prosperity, so maintaining a stable and sustainable population appears to be the best bet for minimizing poverty. Our optimum/sustainable population estimate for a steady state economy is a population of 500,000.”

A growth forever culture with finite resources has been proven to be bad for the environment and long-term sustainability. It is also not good for the economic well-being of people.

Leave a Reply

16 Comments on "George Plumb: Poverty & population"

Comment Policy requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Greg Lapworth
2 years 1 month ago

Guess it goes to prove “government centralized planning” doesn’t work. China is a prime example.
Let the “invisible hand” do its work. Avoid Socialism and Communism and you will prosper.

John Greenberg
2 years 1 month ago

WHAT “goes to prove “government centralized planning” doesn’t work?” Of WHAT is China “a prime example?”

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 1 month ago

a prime example of exporting AMERICA’ s wealth! Who makes the most plant food now John?

Eric Zencey
2 years 1 month ago
This is an important truth: population growth doesn’t decrease poverty, it increases it. The economy creates wealth from a stream of matter and energy taken from the environment (and discarded back into it). The amount of matter and energy that the planet can sustainably offer us (and the amount of degraded matter and energy it can sustainably absorb from us) is finite. With a fixed and finite amount of wealth, the more people there, are the smaller on average each individual share must be. Historically, economists of the infinite-growth school have ignored this fundamental truth. They’ve done so by disagreeing… Read more »
2 years 1 month ago

“Population growth doesn’t decrease poverty, it increases it.”

Maybe, uh … check that graph again? The data suggests there is no correlation or a slightly negative correlation.

The graph is located immediately after the second paragraph.

John Grady
2 years 1 month ago
The growth Ponzi scheme was based on being able to exploit the next group of immigrants and tons of cheap land and cheap energy. The people already here did great under the system and believed they where climbing the ladder and doing better than the last generation of their family who where the last batch of exploited immigrants. The population of the country has doubled since 1950 and most of the growth has created gridlock in cities while the cost of housing has exploded do to a limited resource called decent and cheap land to build on. All the low… Read more »
Philip Beliveau
2 years 1 month ago

Spew out the tea party cliches, Greg! Let’s do away with all that socialism like public roads, schools and utilities! Blast us back to the stone age.

George Webb
2 years 1 month ago

I totally agree that proverty gets worse as population increases. The only way to decrease poverty is to stabilize population, greatly increase the minimum wage, decrease taxes on lower middle income people, and greatly increase taxes on the very rich.

2 years 1 month ago

Again, I would like to register my total astonishment that adults can be shown the data and still walk away from this with a totally different conclusion. Pure ideology at work.

Dave Bellini
2 years 1 month ago

Vermont has less poverty today than it did in the 1960’s. Population was less in the 60’s too.

Robert Fireovid
2 years 1 month ago

The people who benefit from increased population are the rich through minimized labor costs, increased demand for natural resources (land, water, energy, etc.), and increased aggregate consumption of goods. When will we learn that growth does NOT benefit the vast majority?

George Plumb
2 years 1 month ago

Thank you for your posts. I’ll admit the graph is a little deceiving. Here is the actual data.
Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Population 389,881 444,330 511,456 562,758 608,827 625,745
*Poverty % 23.5 9.1 12.1 9.9 9.4 12.7
# in Poverty 91,622 40,434 61,886 55,713 57,230 79,470
As you can see there was a sharp decline in poverty between 1960 and 1970, I guess because the economy was booming at that time with the building of the interstate. However since then I have seen clear evidence of growth in poverty although thankfully government programs have helped reduce the impact.

If you are interested in the issue of population growth in general I invite you to take a short survey that we have just launched. It is at:

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 1 month ago

The main reason for all the poverty in VT is that everything is so damn expensive, energy, property taxes, education, and in Montpelier they just keep passing laws to suck more discretionary income from the citizens, while passing out just enough to survive in the form of food stamps, socialized medicine, and tax breaks for the wealthy that have lawyers and accountants that can work all the angles of every new law.

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 1 month ago

From looking at the numbers, we are right on track with the United Nations Agenda 21 Marxist solution to population growth. If we keep it up then pretty soon the glaciers will start growing again, right?

Paul Lorenzini
2 years 1 month ago

Another Ice Age, that will certainly curb the unwanted growth of population, especially without a reliable source of energy for the folks in poverty. Well of course they will be forced into the urban areas, or freeze to death. Hooray for Marxism!!!!!!!!

Jacob Miller
2 years 1 month ago
Mr. Plumb; Aristotle also contended that women exist as natural deformities or imperfect males. Having witnessed poverty in Vermont in the 1950’s, it is very different from what we observe in Vermont today. There was abject poverty and absolutely no “safety net”. Please read the history of the “Poor Farm” in Vermont at this link. Your essay appears to be just another attempt to promote your population control group, which you seem to do on a quarterly basis in this forum. With the 4th oldest population in the country and the 2nd lowest birth rate, your desire for Vermont… Read more »
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "George Plumb: Poverty & population"