3 ms·

The Great People Shortage is coming – it's going to cause global economic chaos

43 points by yarapavan 4y ago

yarapavan 4y ago
Archive link: https://archive.ph/zBiPM https://archive.ph/zBiPM
badpun 4y ago
We'll see less economic growth, but for the ordinary person, what counts is the growth per capita. Growth in total is important only for the investor class, as it translates into return levels on their capital.
- ssivark 4y ago
  That misses the point that the number of “productive” humans (some fraction of working age people), and the number of humans that need to be supported (especially the large aging populace) are mismatched. There are a lot of growth obligations baked into the current economic system.
danbmil99 4y ago
I initially parsed this headline as: The (Great People) shortage is coming
- rubyist5eva 4y ago
  These days it kinda feels like both to be honest.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tuatoru 4y ago
Nine years ago the business media were all "robots are going to take everyone's jobs!!1!". Time for the robots to show up to work and clock in. In the mean time, in developed countries the balance of power in wage negotiations has shifted in favor of workers, for the first time since the 1970s.
jl2718 4y ago
> as living standards improve, the number of children per family starts to decline Nice theory, but causality clearly goes in the opposite direction.
- lupire 4y ago
  Explanation? The traditional theory is that when one person can be more productive via education and technology, they stop relying on offspring as a labor source, because they can increase productivity more via mental labor and toool building then via uterine labor. It's a bit cyclical, since not caring for babies frees up time for more mental labor to improve productivity to reduce the need for child labor.
  - jl2718 4y ago
    Children are always, in every society, very costly to the immediate family that cares for them, and any benefit accrues to the greatly extended family, tribe, religious sect, kingdom, state, or market economy. The idea that people decide to have more children simply because they are struggling, is a patently ridiculous and alienating belief about ‘other’ people. Rather, they are forced or rewarded for ‘uterine labor’ as you say, and therefore what you say does apply to the social organism as it evolves to greater complexity and specialization, and to the individual only through the reward structure. But, back to my point, which is that this economic specialization is not at all causal to living standards, which could be absolutely awful and yet provide no incentive for childbearing. This tribal structure has a common name: ‘extinct’. Conversely, an unspecialized tribe could enjoy wonderful living standards, and they would be expected to grow prodigiously. And finally, if a previously unspecialized tribe becomes specialized, and therefore lowers their birth rate with the same economic output, their living standard will increase. Okay one more to drive the point home. Consider the Mongols or Wahhabists. These were low-fertility specialized tribes that enjoyed massive increases in living standard, followed by such a massive increase in fertility that it would eclipse the population growth of all other tribes. Market participation is the force that both drives specialization away from ‘uterine labor’. Additionally, it reduces the value of all outputs such that there is not enough prosperity margin to produce children. Imagine a high-fertility tribe that can no longer afford to feed and house children because the market price naturally drops for their goods over time. In this case, the causality clearly works in the opposite direction. So I will state the obvious, that improved living standards do not cause low fertility, but market participation does, and the result of this combination is increased living standards.
stuntkite 4y ago
Well then, some folks should have taken a few less liberties with fighting a living wage so they could go buy yachts and shit. The world is going to change, as it always has. I mean, we are all going to boil to death soon, who gives a fuck. Drink paint, take a nap, go to a party. Spend time with your friends and family. Steal a mega yacht and throw a party on it that you invite me to where listen to hella bass music while beaching the thing. I mean seriously. Who. Fucking. Cares.

43 points by yarapavan 4y ago

Archive link: https://archive.ph/zBiPM https://archive.ph/zBiPM

We'll see less economic growth, but for the ordinary person, what counts is the growth per capita. Growth in total is important only for the investor class, as it translates into return levels on their capital.

ssivark 4y ago
That misses the point that the number of “productive” humans (some fraction of working age people), and the number of humans that need to be supported (especially the large aging populace) are mismatched. There are a lot of growth obligations baked into the current economic system.

danbmil99 4y ago

I initially parsed this headline as: The (Great People) shortage is coming

rubyist5eva 4y ago
These days it kinda feels like both to be honest.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tuatoru 4y ago

Nine years ago the business media were all "robots are going to take everyone's jobs!!1!". Time for the robots to show up to work and clock in. In the mean time, in developed countries the balance of power in wage negotiations has shifted in favor of workers, for the first time since the 1970s.

jl2718 4y ago

> as living standards improve, the number of children per family starts to decline Nice theory, but causality clearly goes in the opposite direction.

lupire 4y ago
Explanation? The traditional theory is that when one person can be more productive via education and technology, they stop relying on offspring as a labor source, because they can increase productivity more via mental labor and toool building then via uterine labor. It's a bit cyclical, since not caring for babies frees up time for more mental labor to improve productivity to reduce the need for child labor.
- jl2718 4y ago
  Children are always, in every society, very costly to the immediate family that cares for them, and any benefit accrues to the greatly extended family, tribe, religious sect, kingdom, state, or market economy. The idea that people decide to have more children simply because they are struggling, is a patently ridiculous and alienating belief about ‘other’ people. Rather, they are forced or rewarded for ‘uterine labor’ as you say, and therefore what you say does apply to the social organism as it evolves to greater complexity and specialization, and to the individual only through the reward structure. But, back to my point, which is that this economic specialization is not at all causal to living standards, which could be absolutely awful and yet provide no incentive for childbearing. This tribal structure has a common name: ‘extinct’. Conversely, an unspecialized tribe could enjoy wonderful living standards, and they would be expected to grow prodigiously. And finally, if a previously unspecialized tribe becomes specialized, and therefore lowers their birth rate with the same economic output, their living standard will increase. Okay one more to drive the point home. Consider the Mongols or Wahhabists. These were low-fertility specialized tribes that enjoyed massive increases in living standard, followed by such a massive increase in fertility that it would eclipse the population growth of all other tribes. Market participation is the force that both drives specialization away from ‘uterine labor’. Additionally, it reduces the value of all outputs such that there is not enough prosperity margin to produce children. Imagine a high-fertility tribe that can no longer afford to feed and house children because the market price naturally drops for their goods over time. In this case, the causality clearly works in the opposite direction. So I will state the obvious, that improved living standards do not cause low fertility, but market participation does, and the result of this combination is increased living standards.

stuntkite 4y ago

Well then, some folks should have taken a few less liberties with fighting a living wage so they could go buy yachts and shit. The world is going to change, as it always has. I mean, we are all going to boil to death soon, who gives a fuck. Drink paint, take a nap, go to a party. Spend time with your friends and family. Steal a mega yacht and throw a party on it that you invite me to where listen to hella bass music while beaching the thing. I mean seriously. Who. Fucking. Cares.