4 ms·

I think the "growth ideology" becomes almost a religion. Economic growth, and subserviently population growth, is very important to the super rich. Sure. But sh

by cies 4y ago

I think the "growth ideology" becomes almost a religion. Economic growth, and subserviently population growth, is very important to the super rich. Sure. But should we then all believe that without growth we are going down? Japan will probably lead the way, but I'm confident we can create societies that thrive and shrink. And if not, I need to see some real hard proof why shrinking has to hurt actual people, instead of using "economic growth" as a goal by itself.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Well there is nothing inherently bad about shrinking or smaller populations, they do pose significant challenges to the current social and economic models, which are based on growth and large working age populations. Lower Workforce participation means people working more For Less personal reward. It also requires a transition away from using that too fund governmental function. Most governments use GDP growth and a higher future tax base to negate the fact that spend more than they receive. In terms of impact to real people, this means adjusting to life with less material wealth. This doesn't just mean fewer trinkets, but also cuts to social Healthcare and welfare spending
- cies 4y ago
  So shrinking absolutely leads to austerity measures? I find that hard to believe.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Nothing is absolute or predetermined, and in fact it is incredibly complicated and uncertain. That said, with all things being equal I would expect austerity simply because you have a smaller and smaller percent of the population working. This means fewer working people to provide services and build things per capita and there is no way around that. Even if you managed to fix income inequality, you still have fewer people to fix your toilet. You also have more elderly that cannot do things for themselves and need assistance so the labor market is hit from both directions

by cies 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Well there is nothing inherently bad about shrinking or smaller populations, they do pose significant challenges to the current social and economic models, which are based on growth and large working age populations. Lower Workforce participation means people working more For Less personal reward. It also requires a transition away from using that too fund governmental function. Most governments use GDP growth and a higher future tax base to negate the fact that spend more than they receive. In terms of impact to real people, this means adjusting to life with less material wealth. This doesn't just mean fewer trinkets, but also cuts to social Healthcare and welfare spending

cies 4y ago
So shrinking absolutely leads to austerity measures? I find that hard to believe.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Nothing is absolute or predetermined, and in fact it is incredibly complicated and uncertain. That said, with all things being equal I would expect austerity simply because you have a smaller and smaller percent of the population working. This means fewer working people to provide services and build things per capita and there is no way around that. Even if you managed to fix income inequality, you still have fewer people to fix your toilet. You also have more elderly that cannot do things for themselves and need assistance so the labor market is hit from both directions