4 ms·

You are thinking very short term and in a very narrow range of conditions around our current economic situation. We have never seen economic conditions remotel

by creato 6y ago

You are thinking very short term and in a very narrow range of conditions around our current economic situation. We have never seen economic conditions remotely close to what we would see if the population were actually shrinking.

sudosysgen 6y ago
We have a good enough understanding of capitalism to know that the average person will not benefit from a shrinking labour pool. You have no clue just how devastating a shrinking population would be to an economy where the real average wage hasn't increased in 40 year.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  So change the economic system? The balls to the wall neoliberal, winner takes all, no safety net model that the Anglo American world has been moving towards for the past thirty years is not the only one. The Anglo American post war consensus model which was more redistributory correlated with higher growth rates (not saying it caused them, kinda hard to tell) while the Northern European corporatist, Scandinavian mixed model and Japanese corporatist models have all been successful in both creating economic growth and distributing that wealth more evenly amongst the population. It has always entertained me that the one thing that the average Marxist and neo liberal share is a belief that there is only one type of capitalism.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    But neither the Northern European nor Japanese models can cope with negative real growth in consumption. Nor negative real growth in savings. There is a fundamental issue in capitalism that there must always be growth. Without growth, the entire concept of investment breaks down and the business cycle cannot continue. You could totally replace it with something that isn't capitalism, but that's not a small endeavor and won't happen without massive conflict. Our current reality is that if the population shrinks significantly, there is a good likelihood that will happen.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  The economy in Britain improved after the black death wiped out half the population.
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's true but I think which bit of the population remains matters. The demographic impact of a plague is pretty much the exact opposite of economic flight. In a plague the fittest and healthiest survive and are unencumbered by the elderly and unfit, but in a demographic flight the fittest and healthiest leave. Similarly in a birth rate collapse the demographics shift towards the elderly and away from the young and fit.
  - fiblye 6y ago
    The black death didn't discriminate and wiped out people of all social statuses equally. It upset power balances rapidly. Barring absolute chaos, people can generally plan for years and decades from now. Declining population is something we all know is coming. Those with wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Those born into wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Japan is always mentioned as the prime example of declining population in these threads, and while the population is declining and demand for labor is increasing, wages are not rising but poverty is. Maybe it'll change 10 or 20 years from now, but the trend is downwards for the average person.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    That was under feudalism, not capitalism.
throwaway936482 6y ago
It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries currently have declining populations, as does Japan, some due to ageing and a drop in fertility and some due to that plus emigration. Economically and socially they've not entered into the death spiral some people seem to think will happen and are actually doing alright. Countries with declining populations due to war, economic collapse etc. are a different matter but in those cases the decline in population is a symptom not a cause. The transition to a shrinking world population will happen gradually over a period of decades and at different times in different areas of the works giving us plenty of time to for economic and social structures to adapt to deal with it. If it were to happen over night we would be in trouble but it won't.
- oblio 6y ago
  We haven't even seen this scenario play out yet. I'm from the region and I don't think it will turn into some Fallout-type scenario, but I think it will definitely impact the well-being of all citizens in these countries, some 20-30 years from now. It's hard to say yet if/how these countries will recover.
  - monodeldiablo 6y ago
    I live in Croatia. Its population has been shrinking since 1991. Almost 30 years of unchecked population decline and it's still not an apocalyptic hellhole. In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle. The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers. Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".
    - oblio 6y ago
      Those aren't related. I'm from Romania, which has: 1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia. And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones. But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"? A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.

by creato 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

We have a good enough understanding of capitalism to know that the average person will not benefit from a shrinking labour pool. You have no clue just how devastating a shrinking population would be to an economy where the real average wage hasn't increased in 40 year.

throwaway936482 6y ago
So change the economic system? The balls to the wall neoliberal, winner takes all, no safety net model that the Anglo American world has been moving towards for the past thirty years is not the only one. The Anglo American post war consensus model which was more redistributory correlated with higher growth rates (not saying it caused them, kinda hard to tell) while the Northern European corporatist, Scandinavian mixed model and Japanese corporatist models have all been successful in both creating economic growth and distributing that wealth more evenly amongst the population. It has always entertained me that the one thing that the average Marxist and neo liberal share is a belief that there is only one type of capitalism.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  But neither the Northern European nor Japanese models can cope with negative real growth in consumption. Nor negative real growth in savings. There is a fundamental issue in capitalism that there must always be growth. Without growth, the entire concept of investment breaks down and the business cycle cannot continue. You could totally replace it with something that isn't capitalism, but that's not a small endeavor and won't happen without massive conflict. Our current reality is that if the population shrinks significantly, there is a good likelihood that will happen.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
The economy in Britain improved after the black death wiped out half the population.
- simonh 6y ago
  That's true but I think which bit of the population remains matters. The demographic impact of a plague is pretty much the exact opposite of economic flight. In a plague the fittest and healthiest survive and are unencumbered by the elderly and unfit, but in a demographic flight the fittest and healthiest leave. Similarly in a birth rate collapse the demographics shift towards the elderly and away from the young and fit.
- fiblye 6y ago
  The black death didn't discriminate and wiped out people of all social statuses equally. It upset power balances rapidly. Barring absolute chaos, people can generally plan for years and decades from now. Declining population is something we all know is coming. Those with wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Those born into wealth will, for the most part, hold onto it. Japan is always mentioned as the prime example of declining population in these threads, and while the population is declining and demand for labor is increasing, wages are not rising but poverty is. Maybe it'll change 10 or 20 years from now, but the trend is downwards for the average person.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That was under feudalism, not capitalism.

throwaway936482 6y ago

It's not actually that unusual for a country to have a shrinking population. Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, and a few other central and Eastern European countries currently have declining populations, as does Japan, some due to ageing and a drop in fertility and some due to that plus emigration. Economically and socially they've not entered into the death spiral some people seem to think will happen and are actually doing alright. Countries with declining populations due to war, economic collapse etc. are a different matter but in those cases the decline in population is a symptom not a cause. The transition to a shrinking world population will happen gradually over a period of decades and at different times in different areas of the works giving us plenty of time to for economic and social structures to adapt to deal with it. If it were to happen over night we would be in trouble but it won't.

oblio 6y ago
We haven't even seen this scenario play out yet. I'm from the region and I don't think it will turn into some Fallout-type scenario, but I think it will definitely impact the well-being of all citizens in these countries, some 20-30 years from now. It's hard to say yet if/how these countries will recover.
- monodeldiablo 6y ago
  I live in Croatia. Its population has been shrinking since 1991. Almost 30 years of unchecked population decline and it's still not an apocalyptic hellhole. In spite of entrenched corruption and other issues, standards of living and wages have gone up, even as the government does everything it can to destroy nascent industry and chase that tourism nickle. The more old people die, the more domestic opportunity there is for the younger generation, and the lower the tax burden on young workers. Honestly, I'm not sure population decline is something Croatia can afford to "recover from".
  - oblio 6y ago
    Those aren't related. I'm from Romania, which has: 1. A higher population population than Croatia. 2. Higher emigration than Croatia. 3. A lower fertility rate than Croatia. And yes, the economy is going up despite people becoming old, dying, or just leaving the country. But the reason for that is temporary, it's because Croatia, just like Romania, is still a developing country, you're converting low productivity workers to higher productivity ones. But how long do you think this can last? What happens when active people are 1/3rd of the population or less and there are no more easy gains to be had? I just said that things won't look like in Fallout, so why are you even mentioning "apocalyptic hellhole"? A country doesn't lose 20% or more of its population without major changes happening. It's extremely optimistic to hope that there won't be at least some major negative changes.