6 ms·

At this point population decline is a bigger risk than population growth.

by mgfist 4y ago

empyrrhicist 4y ago
Risk for what? Sure, that poses demographic challenges, but having fewer people would make fighting climate change and ecosystem collapse much easier.
- lupire 4y ago
  Risk of a shortage of subsistence laborers creating wealth for capital owners.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  If you think supply shortages were bad when some shifts had to stay home due to covid exposure just wait until those workers don't even exist anymore.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    Labor Force Participation Rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART There is a LOT of slack in the participation rate. Those workers exist and many of them will likely move back to the workforce if the wages adjust upward to be a more lucrative job due to scarcity. Sure, it's not going to look the same in 2050, but the economy will just run at 80% participation rate then, rather than 62% now.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      There are some problems with using the LFPR, it's calculated as a percent of the civilian non-institutional population[0] (everyone over 16 that isn't locked up) for one which is very different from considering what percent of prime age[1] (25 - 54) workers are employed which is currently at around 82%. What you're saying should happen would mean that pretty much everyone who isn't dead or incapacitated would have to work, so abolish retirement and get grandma back to work at the grocery store until she drops dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_noninstitutional_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_noninstitutional_popu... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
- prichino 4y ago
  - empyrrhicist 4y ago
    What, by not having kids? Already there.
orthecreedence 4y ago
> bigger risk Only if the economic system is a giant ponzi scheme that depends on continuous, infinite growth. Really, high population is the source of an enormous amount of problems. We should absolutely be focused on decreasing our population. The planet can support us at our current (and higher) populations, but to be frank, liberal democracies and capitalist markets at-scale are incapable of organizing production in a way that doesn't destroy the earth. It's funny, there was a post recently about "unsolved problems in economics." Nowhere was there a mention of the biggest economic problem in existence: externalities. Why? Because capitalism is incapable of solving the problem, and the economists know this, so they don't bother talking about it. They pretend it's an issue of state, when the profit mechanism itself is the cause for most externalities. If we want to preserve our current precious economic order, we need lower populations.
- bequanna 4y ago
  “Capitalism can’t solve externalities” Blanket statements like that are so clearly false and I’m not sure what you’re implying. What is communism’s record on environmental protection? Well, we can go to China or Russia for some clues. HUMANS aren’t good at understanding externalities. Of course this isn’t some new realization, we’ve known about the tragedy of the commons for some time which is why we have regulation.
  - lizknope 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
  - orthecreedence 4y ago
    > when the profit mechanism itself is the cause for most externalities. I was pretty clear. I'll break it down for you though! I have costs, and I have sales. sales - costs = margin (or, profit). If my sales are steady, what's a good method of increasing margin? Reducing costs! How is this generally accomplished? By making some other sap pay for them: externalizing my costs. The profit mechanism actively incentivizes externalities. This is plain fact, and there's nothing "clearly false" about it. Our economic system encourages externalities, and then builds enormous state apparatuses to quell the effects. You're free to ignore the facts, though. > What is communism’s record on environmental protection? How is this relevant? And why is state planning the only solution in people's minds to replacing capitalist markets? There's more than either/or here. > HUMANS aren’t good at understanding externalities. We understand them fine. We're being literally paid to create them, though. > which is why we have regulation. Yeah, that's working great so far!

At this point population decline is a bigger risk than population growth.

by mgfist 4y ago

At this point population decline is a bigger risk than population growth.

Risk for what? Sure, that poses demographic challenges, but having fewer people would make fighting climate change and ecosystem collapse much easier.

lupire 4y ago
Risk of a shortage of subsistence laborers creating wealth for capital owners.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
If you think supply shortages were bad when some shifts had to stay home due to covid exposure just wait until those workers don't even exist anymore.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  Labor Force Participation Rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART There is a LOT of slack in the participation rate. Those workers exist and many of them will likely move back to the workforce if the wages adjust upward to be a more lucrative job due to scarcity. Sure, it's not going to look the same in 2050, but the economy will just run at 80% participation rate then, rather than 62% now.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    There are some problems with using the LFPR, it's calculated as a percent of the civilian non-institutional population[0] (everyone over 16 that isn't locked up) for one which is very different from considering what percent of prime age[1] (25 - 54) workers are employed which is currently at around 82%. What you're saying should happen would mean that pretty much everyone who isn't dead or incapacitated would have to work, so abolish retirement and get grandma back to work at the grocery store until she drops dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_noninstitutional_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_noninstitutional_popu... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
prichino 4y ago
- empyrrhicist 4y ago
  What, by not having kids? Already there.

orthecreedence 4y ago

> bigger risk Only if the economic system is a giant ponzi scheme that depends on continuous, infinite growth. Really, high population is the source of an enormous amount of problems. We should absolutely be focused on decreasing our population. The planet can support us at our current (and higher) populations, but to be frank, liberal democracies and capitalist markets at-scale are incapable of organizing production in a way that doesn't destroy the earth. It's funny, there was a post recently about "unsolved problems in economics." Nowhere was there a mention of the biggest economic problem in existence: externalities. Why? Because capitalism is incapable of solving the problem, and the economists know this, so they don't bother talking about it. They pretend it's an issue of state, when the profit mechanism itself is the cause for most externalities. If we want to preserve our current precious economic order, we need lower populations.

bequanna 4y ago
“Capitalism can’t solve externalities” Blanket statements like that are so clearly false and I’m not sure what you’re implying. What is communism’s record on environmental protection? Well, we can go to China or Russia for some clues. HUMANS aren’t good at understanding externalities. Of course this isn’t some new realization, we’ve known about the tragedy of the commons for some time which is why we have regulation.
- lizknope 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
- orthecreedence 4y ago
  > when the profit mechanism itself is the cause for most externalities. I was pretty clear. I'll break it down for you though! I have costs, and I have sales. sales - costs = margin (or, profit). If my sales are steady, what's a good method of increasing margin? Reducing costs! How is this generally accomplished? By making some other sap pay for them: externalizing my costs. The profit mechanism actively incentivizes externalities. This is plain fact, and there's nothing "clearly false" about it. Our economic system encourages externalities, and then builds enormous state apparatuses to quell the effects. You're free to ignore the facts, though. > What is communism’s record on environmental protection? How is this relevant? And why is state planning the only solution in people's minds to replacing capitalist markets? There's more than either/or here. > HUMANS aren’t good at understanding externalities. We understand them fine. We're being literally paid to create them, though. > which is why we have regulation. Yeah, that's working great so far!