Well, the Japan’s population is declining and they’ve been in stagflation for the last 30 years.
Anon isn't worried about population decline
Submitted 23 hours ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to greentext@sh.itjust.works
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/aa975e2d-e584-42f6-beac-33cc14b0c349.jpeg
Comments
Rusty@lemmy.ca 2 hours ago
frog@feddit.uk 22 hours ago
The people that want higher birth rates don’t care about higher wages, the environment, or people’s safety.
They just need workers they can milk them until they can’t work anymore. They need these workers to spend all their money so they have to keep working.
ladicius@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
The endgame of capitalism is slavery.
JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
The early game of capitalism was slavery
x00z@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
They also want to make sure people with a different skill color do not have more babies than them.
I think that’s actually the main reason.
BillionaireStew@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
And it never ever ever goes as planned because the bigots running the eugenics program are myopic twits.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 hours ago
Is skill coloured by the type of skill or by the level of skill?
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Look what happened after the plague, 50% of the population was gone.
It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise… ever.
nullspace@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I think there’s a comic series about that.
Chick0nPlayz@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
who will work unskilled jobs if there aren’t enough people to do them?
Immigrants usually
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
I mean, this is a pretty silly response. Is there a hidden population of Martians I’m not aware of, eager to immigrate to Earth to work our low skill jobs?
adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Huh? Global population is still growing. (More slowly now, but the slope is still strongly positive.) We haven’t hit peak human population yet and won’t any time soon. That means if the population of the US declines, we can just import more USians.
iocase@lemmy.zip 4 hours ago
Also the financial ponzi schemes break all at once pissing off old people who vote in mecha-hitler to enslave everyone under 40 so their house prices and pensions stay high.
Randelung@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Houses are already kept artificially empty to retain prices. Capitalism always finds a way to screw you over.
GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
8+ billion people on the planet and people complain about not enough people.
whalesnrainbows@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Yeah, people worried about “population decline” are actually concerned about their preferred race/religion losing political & cultural power.
It’s a dog whistle every time
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
It’s a dog whistle every time.
Population decline isn’t inherently a problem (unless you’re a racist worried about “your people” losing power). Too rapid population decline is a big problem. We’re already seeing the effects: When the sum of birth rates and working-age immigration fall fast enough, the ratio of working-age people to care-needing people also falls. I don’t think I need to explain why it’s a problem that every able-bodied working age adult will be responsible (directly or indirectly) for taking care of more people. It puts more pressure on everyone, and impacts societies ability to care for those in need of it.
A controlled, slow, population decline would probably just be a good thing at this point. However, that’s not what prognoses are pointing towards, and that’s why (non-racist) people are worried.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 19 hours ago
Hegemony is the word you’re looking for.
Yeah, always a dog whistle.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 18 hours ago
Why would I care about how many people are the same race as me? It could only be a problem if you keep racism.
Fallibilist@feddit.uk 18 hours ago
Worry about population decline isn’t about wanting more people. It’s about wanting there to be enough working-age people to cover the retirement and medical payments of the ones no longer working. We know exactly how many 30-year-olds we’ll have in 20 years and it’s simply not enough. Something has to give and usually the first to go is the benefits for the people who most need them.
666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Or maybe the something that has to give is a minority class of people (the .1%) getting a few percent higher tax “burden”
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Why the obsession with only retirees? What matters is the dependency ratio.Image
The dependency ratio counts the total number of dependents, not just the retirees the eugenicists like to focus on. By the end of the century, globally we’ll have a dependency ratio similar to the level it was in the mid-20th century.
GonzoAtBarstow@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
That falls back to “ponzi schemes aren’t sustainable”
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
usually the first to go is the benefits for the people who most need them.
Then this way of life is not worth saving.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 18 hours ago
When do they teach ‘carrying capacity’ and what happens after it’s exceeded these days?
OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
When the population was predicted to explode into the 21st century, the news said this was a big problem. Now the population is expected to gradually decline. The news is saying this is a big problem.
FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Both can be a problem
Sly2@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
What News is saying this?
lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org 14 hours ago
The Onion of course, onionguy!
qarbone@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Not all news, per se, but I do recall seeing reporting on how a good handful of countries are trying to combat falling birth rates. Like in Far East and Far North countries.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 hours ago
They are problems for different reasons
rumba@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
Booms have market opportunity, and busts have market opportunity.
That said, having too many people to do the work is a lot less dangerous than not enough people to do the work.
The bust comes with a high risk of a total economic collapse. Those houses get cheap, but food, sanitary, and energy security are at risk. Living in a rotting infrastructure is very different than living in an expanding but underdeveloped infrastructure.
Leveling out or a slow population decline would be good in some scenarios. If we’re going from 2.5:1 down to 0.25:1, you’ll end up with another boomer wave, pissed off at the government, ripe for scenarios that make today’s problems seem like an annoying party.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
now you know why weve had such a big anti abortion push
NotAnOtter@lemmus.org 10 hours ago
Lower population is generally better for almost all sectors.
But lowering the population means killing people or restricting birthing rights.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Well, I dunno about you, but I’m in no hurry to get children.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com 7 hours ago
People can also just stop breeding. Seems to be happening in a lot of developed countries. Might be slower but I bet the population will level off eventually. Or plummet dramatically from climate change/right wing political policies.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Well no. That’s a wildly incorrect take.
Birth rates are already decreasing and are below replacement rate in many places already. Fertility rates are at an all time low. They naturally decrease as income and quality of life increases.
The global fertility rate is 2.2 births per woman. Which is just barely above replacement. In most developed nations, that rate is down in the 1.6 range, well below replacement.
Total Human population is excepted to peak within 50 years and then begun naturally declining, but many countries are already there. China has seen several consecutive years of population decline. India is seeing a leveling off of population growth and will soon decline. The US is increasing solely off of immigration. Japan has a decreasing population. Same with Korea. 8 EU countries have seen population declines over the last 20 years.
If you wanted to see population decline in the US specifically, banning immigration would do it and we’d see a decline in the next census.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 8 hours ago
Or people just saying “nah”
Damage@feddit.it 8 hours ago
Population is already lowering in developed nations
daddycool@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Thanos has entered the chat.
mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
The same people having the same offspring, but later, would lower the population.
So long as people die like regular you can stuff all those dreadful fantasies. Unfortunately, malice is not required for this number to go down.
nforminvasion@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Yeah… It’s something that has to happen naturally or really slowly to not be eugenicist AF.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
war kills people and is sometimes popular
superduperpirate@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Ya know, I have vague memories of reading an argument somewhere that the black plague killed off so many peasants that the surviving ones had materially less shitty conditions for a little while, due to scarcity and all that.
Varesti@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
Great news, we’re bringing the plague back too!
ladicius@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
The actual disease caused by pest bacteria is easily treatable nowadays.
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 22 hours ago
Specifically, the peasants had more bargaining power for better conditions because the absolute decrease in their number made each of them more valuable to the ruling class as individuals. There was an increase in peasant revolts, and concessions to the peasantry following the black death partly for this reason.
logos@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
Peasants only got the ability to leave the land they were bound to to seek better employment elsewhere after the black plague.
Triasha@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
This is true in places. There are also acounts of places where all the nobility died and the peasants threw weeks long parties.
someguy3@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Yup, labor scarcity meant higher wages and bargaining power.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
increase wages
Hahahaha oh. That’s cute.
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
If theres a shortage in the labor market, you either fill it with slavery or raise wages.
Americans track record seems to indicate the former waaayyyy before the latter
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 12 hours ago
Raising wages fucks the people trying to retire because their stock holdings lose value. It’ll have to be slavery you want to continue having retirement as a thing. Ideally colonialism + slavery, just import slaves from countries still experiencing population growth, such as many African ones…
Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
If you can’t afford to tip, you can’t afford to eat out. Maybe you should get a second job that pays $2ph
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 12 hours ago
Okay, but retirement is based off there being more people working than not, so in countries with national pensions we’ll have to significantly raise taxes, and in countries without such a system, retirees who are invested into index funds, need publicly traded corporations to start underpaying their employees even more (it’s really eye-opening when you realize people over 55 own 73% of all the resources of the US, from money to stocks to real estate).
FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Sounds to me like we’ll have to do a communism, i.e banding together to help each other out more, to allow people to retire in comfort. The horror!
LodeMike@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
Oh no not rich people having less money.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Hogwash. You forgot the other half of the equation. We don’t have as many children to support. Notice how people obsessed over birth rate always focus on the retiree:worker ratio rather than the dependent:worker ratio? The problem disappears once you realize we can simply take money that we were spending on childcare and shift it to eldercare.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
isn’t that specifically the government pentions! social security and somewhat less important to those that have personal retirement accounts?
khaleer@sopuli.xyz 18 hours ago
you all going to say bullshit about retirement, like fascist around the globe don’t want to take it from you already, no amount of canon fodders you spawn for billionaires won’t change that
Serinus@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
We just never get to retire. workers per retiree over time
By 2030 it’s projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.
Serinus@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Seems like it’d be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go.
Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 18 hours ago
Build more housing so that houses are more affordable, bring on the 4 day work week.
Expensive houses just funnels more money into the hands of banks and landlords without providing any benefit to society.
chunes@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
The population isn’t declining, though. See for yourself: www.worldometers.info/world-population/
meaansel@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Who’s gonna build that real estate with fewer people around? Where would money for higher salary come from with fewer customers? Pollution argument is a “carbon footprint” type of bullshit to shift responsibility to general population from companies that actually do most of pollution, and violently defend their right to do so. Communities become less highly knit because of third spaces dying, phones colonising spare time, and algorithms pushing people to have worse view of world and each other.
Increase population should increase efficiency (economies of scale, many products of intellectual labor being infinitely replicatable) - and efficiency did increase at the same time as population. It’s just that salaries didn’t.
Mental gymnastic to make worsening conditions of ordinary people somehow fault of other ordinary people.
EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 22 hours ago
Yeah, there will probably be some growing (er, shrinking) pains, but I’m totally fine if the world just wasn’t meant to have 10 billion people on it
Triasha@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
There are real challenges to population decline, especially rapid decline like Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, russia, and China are facing.
The US and Great Britain are not looking at that rapid decline. For us, it’s a problem to be managed. Every generation of schoolchildren is 75% the size of the preceeding generation.
That’s manageable. No promises that we will do anything to manage it, but it’s not crisis level. Other countries will have greater problems. JApan has been doing Allright.
FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
I feel like this as well.
LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
The right wing family values rural living types seem awfully strange when they are unhappy about the suggestion that we return to 1960s population levels
cadekat@pawb.social 22 hours ago
The per capita cost of maintaining existing infrastructure costs does become a problem, but yeah, a solvable one.
csolisr@hub.azkware.net 23 hours ago
One caveat: the rich would rather use violence to force the few people left into menial tasks, than increase wages even a cent.ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org 21 hours ago
what the hell is this WEF UN propaganda?
Fizz@lemmy.nz 21 hours ago
Wages will go up as will competition over labor which will mean less businesses and a shrink in the economy. Do we want to live in a world where small business cant hire anyone?
PixeIOrange@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Communism!!!¡! 😡
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Even the fears about the economy and government spending are bullshit. Notice the folks obsessing over birthrates always quote the retiree to worker ratio. They don’t talk about the dependent to worker ratio, and that’s what really matters. Yes, our populations are aging, and yes that means relatively more old people to take care of. But we in turn also have far fewer children to take care of. If we can adapt to the Baby Boom era, we can adapt to an aging population.
Further afield, fears about human extinction are total bullshit. No country is a monolith; every nation has groups within it with higher and lower relative birth rates. If the birth rate stays low and never recovers among the mainstream society, eventually the smaller groups end up composing most of the population, and then the birth rate recovers. The Amish inherit the Earth.
Or, if even that fails, ultimately technology loss alone stabilizes your birthrates. Eventually your population falls so low that you just can’t physically manufacture reliable birth control anymore. That’s a product of industrial production. It requires a certain minimum population size to run a factory. Below that and we just regress to earlier technological eras. Eventually we end up back in a mostly agrarian state, and suddenly having kids is once again economically beneficial.