5 ms·
Risk for what? Sure, that poses demographic challenges, but having fewer people would make fighting climate change and ecosystem collapse much easier.
by 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 agoRisk of a shortage of subsistence laborers creating wealth for capital owners.
- throwaway4aday 4y agoIf 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 agoLabor 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 agoThere 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 agoWhat, by not having kids? Already there.