3 ms·

1. Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. 2. Immigration is a thing. 3. Kids are labour intensive so if we w

1. Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. 2. Immigration is a thing. 3. Kids are labour intensive so if we weren't having kids, maybe that freed up labour depressing wages that are now returning to 'normal' rather than wages being 'normal' previously. 4. What nation has anywhere near zero employment?

lm28469 3y ago
> Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years ? That's what every politicians/economics were saying in the 60s/70s/80s, where did it go ? > Immigration is a thing. A thing that brings other things that are less and less accepted in a lot of countries
- mortureb 3y ago
  Like what? 51% of the top 500 billion dollar unicorns in the US are founded by immigrants. Job creation is unacceptable?
  - lm28469 3y ago
    The world isn't the US, the US is literally 100% immigration
    - mortureb 3y ago
      There’s still a distinction between first generation immigrants (ones that weren’t born in the US) and others and they’re who start the companies.
      - lm28469 3y ago
        European statistics say otherwise
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  > Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years ? No, that was labor unions and the government. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052968060/how-the-40-hour-work-week-became-the-norm https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052968060/how-the-40-hour-wo... The market has no rational incentive to pay people the same for less work or to keep paying superfluous workers as automation evolves. At the end of that article, an economist is quoted as speculating that the rise in productivity would decimate the hours we need to work, but that makes no sense when you think about it. If I can get yesteryear's daily productivity in a minute, why would I, holding yesteryear's productivity as a constant, decide that I and my employees should only for 1 minute? Why not just work for a day and reap in the TONS of extra productivity, especially considering competitors might be doing that? The only way it works is if the government forced everyone to.
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago
  > "Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years?" It did. For the few who are willing to accept the lower standard of living of the past, this era is quite comfortable. A lot of things that people think too basic to give up today were special treats or luxuries in the past, like eating out at restaurants or going out to the movies. But, no, the majority wanted to keep up with the Joneses and are happy to spend away all their income even if it dooms them to toil away at a unloved job forever.
Tade0 3y ago
> 1. Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. It won't because you're adding like 5 years of work from a cohort that amounts to around 3% of the total population, while at the same time you're already missing at least double that from the deficit of births in the 90s and it's only going to get worse. > 2. Immigration is a thing. From where? The supply of immigrants who went to school is dwindling - and has been for over 20 years now because they're not born in source countries. > 3. Kids are labour intensive so if we weren't having kids, maybe that freed up labour depressing wages that are now returning to 'normal' rather than wages being 'normal' previously. Children aren't "full time for the rest of your life" labour intensive - I should know since I'm a parent. > 4. What nation has anywhere near zero employment? I don't understand this question and how it relates to what I wrote.

lm28469 3y ago

> Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years ? That's what every politicians/economics were saying in the 60s/70s/80s, where did it go ? > Immigration is a thing. A thing that brings other things that are less and less accepted in a lot of countries

mortureb 3y ago
Like what? 51% of the top 500 billion dollar unicorns in the US are founded by immigrants. Job creation is unacceptable?
- lm28469 3y ago
  The world isn't the US, the US is literally 100% immigration
  - mortureb 3y ago
    There’s still a distinction between first generation immigrants (ones that weren’t born in the US) and others and they’re who start the companies.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      European statistics say otherwise
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
> Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years ? No, that was labor unions and the government. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052968060/how-the-40-hour-work-week-became-the-norm https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052968060/how-the-40-hour-wo... The market has no rational incentive to pay people the same for less work or to keep paying superfluous workers as automation evolves. At the end of that article, an economist is quoted as speculating that the rise in productivity would decimate the hours we need to work, but that makes no sense when you think about it. If I can get yesteryear's daily productivity in a minute, why would I, holding yesteryear's productivity as a constant, decide that I and my employees should only for 1 minute? Why not just work for a day and reap in the TONS of extra productivity, especially considering competitors might be doing that? The only way it works is if the government forced everyone to.
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
> "Wait wasn't capitalism supposed to bring us less work hours and less overall working years?" It did. For the few who are willing to accept the lower standard of living of the past, this era is quite comfortable. A lot of things that people think too basic to give up today were special treats or luxuries in the past, like eating out at restaurants or going out to the movies. But, no, the majority wanted to keep up with the Joneses and are happy to spend away all their income even if it dooms them to toil away at a unloved job forever.

Tade0 3y ago

> 1. Retirement ages have generally been increasing over the period which should offset this. It won't because you're adding like 5 years of work from a cohort that amounts to around 3% of the total population, while at the same time you're already missing at least double that from the deficit of births in the 90s and it's only going to get worse. > 2. Immigration is a thing. From where? The supply of immigrants who went to school is dwindling - and has been for over 20 years now because they're not born in source countries. > 3. Kids are labour intensive so if we weren't having kids, maybe that freed up labour depressing wages that are now returning to 'normal' rather than wages being 'normal' previously. Children aren't "full time for the rest of your life" labour intensive - I should know since I'm a parent. > 4. What nation has anywhere near zero employment? I don't understand this question and how it relates to what I wrote.