5 ms·
The downside is that our entire world economy is predicated on the assumption that labor will be cheap and markets ever expanding. Even if the population stabil
by paradox242 4y ago
The downside is that our entire world economy is predicated on the assumption that labor will be cheap and markets ever expanding. Even if the population stabilizes, it looks like it will be well below what is considered replacement level and so this will require a massive shift in our thinking about how we organize literally everything in our society.
I don't know if it is possible to overstate how much things will change. The service staff you interact with at Starbucks, the grocery store, who deliver your meals, will no longer be affordable. These places will still exist in some form (though there will likely be fewer) and they will be much more automated than they even are now. These people will be so needed elsewhere that salaries will likely draw them to other industries critical to society continuing to function. Healthcare, in particular, will swallow up as much of the population as it is able to (much more than even now in a relative, not absolute sense).
We will have to make hard choices about continuing to support things like suburbs and other far-flung infrastructure that only barely made sense as long as you assumed more and more houses would be built and that property taxes would continue to go up to support it all. That will no longer be true, those houses will start to go empty, then the surrounding commercial properties. There will not be anyone interested in buying them. Some will be torn down, many will probably rot in place. This has already been in progress for decades in economically depressed areas, particularly the so-called "Rust Belt" in the United States.
There will (and already are) massive brain drains in key industries where skilled older workers are either not being replaced, or by those with much less directly applicable experience. The ability to maintain our infrastructure will become strained to the point where we will have to ask ourselves how we can safely reverse our maintenance and operation commitments alongside a constantly shrinking population while avoiding single points of failure that could trigger a panic or societal collapse. This is not far-fetched alarmism, the way we currently live, we are only a week or two of regional or national power outages away from complete anarchy. So many of our systems are interrelated, that a failure of one or two critical ones can have a cascading effect. The smaller local outages in Texas in 2021 was minutes away from leading to nearly months-long blackouts for this reason.
We will need more redundancy and slack in the system to manage these when they occur. Market capitalism abhors redundancy as inefficient so this will not be highly incentivized to be taken on by any one corporation, leading to governments likely deciding to impose extreme regulation or outright nationalize industries.
Interestingly, the United States may be one of the few societies where things more or less run along as normal, but this is only assuming a continued or increasing permissive immigration policy. The more we go the way of the Japanese, all of the above applies.
- eldritch_4ier 4y agoThis just looks like basic biology to me. Yea it will be rough and quite the adjustment, but not catastrophic and totally precedented in nature. We will reach a new equilibrium - like all nature does. These same people just a few decades ago were saying we're on track for runaway population growth because they couldn't imagine birth rates slowing. Now they say we're on track to go extinct because they can't imagine birth rates every picking up again. There are communities even in developed countries that are at an equilibrium birth rate, and the rest of the world will get there. That's simply how nature has worked over and over. The population will continue to grow, slow, then level off. Maybe decline somewhat, but find it's new equilibrium. There's pretty simple logic to this too from natural selection: the types of people who don't want kids will see their genetic line end or can't, the people who do want kids and can will see their lines continue. The remaining over time will be people more and more inclined to have kids and the environmental effects will decline the population until we're at a sustainable level. Nature is self-correcting, always has been, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence for why that wouldn't just happen here too. These same corrective mechanisms are the same in the economy.