4 ms·

Back at work in 4 months. This effing country. Capitalism has self-destruction baked into it, but not necessarily the global warming. Capitalism really feeds o

Back at work in 4 months. This effing country. Capitalism has self-destruction baked into it, but not necessarily the global warming. Capitalism really feeds off of the double-impact of industrialization and urbanization. But urbanization (currently) leads to a sharp drop in fecundity, to the point that you can basically project a negative growth rate as a result. The US being so massive combined with lots of legal/illegal immigration has staved it off, but Japan, Germany, China, Russia, and Korea are all in various stages of demographic collapse. Because, simply, capitalism and the economic yes-men that underpin it can't properly incent women to have kids when the economic payoff for the elite-in-charge is a nebulous 20-30 years down the road. What current economics/accounting DOES tell every corporation in the world is that female workers having kids imposes a substantial cost in providing benefits. Corporations are about imposing costs on society while reaping profits, NOT the other way around. Sustaining the population across generations isn't the luxury that current capitalism and politics around worker rights and healthcare view it. It is pretty demonstrably a key pillar to keeping the entire thing running. Capitalism in America croaks along obsessing over 2-4% "economic growth" per year, but how does that seemingly necessary growth occur if the population, especially the working/productive ones, SHRINK? The US, again, can stave this off with immigration. South Korea? I think North Korea will collapse and they will see a demographic infusion that way, otherwise they are REALLY up shit creek. Japan was the first to deal with it, they are hobbling along with negative interest rates. Germany/Europe? Immigration is a bit more problematic, although Russia's demographic and authoritarian collapse and the Ukraine refugees might produce a large infusion.

andsoitis 2y ago
> Because, simply, capitalism and the economic yes-men that underpin it can't properly incent women to have kids Since most "capitalist" countries are really mixed economies (combination of state intervention and free market), I wonder what in your mind would explain the same pattern of population decline in the following places: China[1], Cuba[2], Italy[3]? Even Norway's population is only increasing due to net migration[4]. Interesting stuff, and I doubt the reason is simply "capitalism does not incentivize women to have children". I suspect the reasons are more complex and interesting than that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term-growth-concerns-2024-01-17 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CUB/cuba/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CUB/cub... [3] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ITA/italy/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ITA/ita... [4] https://www.statista.com/topics/10080/demographics-of-norway/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/10080/demographics-of-norway...
- tuatoru 2y ago
  It's the same incentives for the leaders of those countries. Get women into the "workforce", i.e., paid employment that isn't bringing up their own children and those of their neighbours. Capitalism's insidious genius is that it forces its way of thinking on its competitors.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
I lament that women return to their jobs so quickly after giving birth (I mean mostly women in marriages and families of sufficient means, as working class women rarely have a choice today; these aren't the 1950s when a working class man could support a large family on his income alone). Children require a couple years with their mothers at least. I can understand the desire to do things other than raise children, but small children are a full-time job. Sadly, it's one that no longer has the esteem it once had and that it truly deserves. Even the phrase "stay-at-home mom" is kind of an underhanded slight against motherhood, as if it's something worse or inferior, less desirable. Motherhood is the bosom, the nursery of humanity! What contempt for humanity to look down on motherhood! Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a mother, or a mother who raises them, but to intentionally deprive children of motherhood is criminal. Think about what the child might internalize about their importance. Some talk about not wanting to be treated like baby-making machines. Well, procreation is not just about giving birth, but raising the child, and so if you delegate the responsibility of raising your children to someone else and not out of dire necessity, then does that not make you like the very thing you sought not to become? In the last 50 years or so, we've become extremely narrow-minded in this respect. It's "career or nothing!" Life is far richer, and never mind that careers are in the service of something and someone. If all is career, then what good is a career? If motherhood is lesser than, then humanity is lesser than, and where does that leave careers? Now, I don't think capitalism, industrialization, or urbanization are the problem here. It's a bit like using "inequality" as a proxy for other things (income inequality is not a problem as such, but people often use it as a proxy for other things). We also tend to look for external causes, like systems, when the problem is spiritual and from which systems emerge, and people lose interest as soon as you say that because it involves taking stock of your own corruption. And these corruptions manifest as and are transmitted through culture. Consumerism is one example. We have made the primary purpose of life to spend. Now, I like variety and material wealth, but I detest consumerism, this awful religion that worships material wealth, divinizes commodities, turns sex into a commodity, a medium of exchange, and an "experience" instead of a procreative act. What do children do? They eat into your budget, which means you can buy less stuff. They are antithetical to consumerism. And when sexual intercourse becomes commodified, then it become sterile. There is your demographic decline. I also don't especially like putting bandages on the status quo that supposedly make staying at home longer possible or easier, certainly not as a long term solution, as this only serves to reinforce and preserve the root of corruption and the consumerist system. It's like going into debt because you live beyond your means because you have a warped sense and priority of value, and then saying "We've got a problem: we're out of money. Let's borrow more to cover these debts and have more to spend." We're engaged in a spiritual Ponzi scheme, a death spiral, and the only way out is to bite the bullet and face our corruption. Only then, with a lot of spiritual bone breaking and pain, will we manage to get to a better place. People don't want to hear that. They want to close their eyes to the oncoming train. They want to keep going down the path of destruction either because they're addicted to it, they don't know any better, or they fear the pain of switching tracks. But a reckoning will happen, and is already happening. We can either start migrating to a new way now, or suffer the course correction (possibly extinction) later, but it will happen.

andsoitis 2y ago

> Because, simply, capitalism and the economic yes-men that underpin it can't properly incent women to have kids Since most "capitalist" countries are really mixed economies (combination of state intervention and free market), I wonder what in your mind would explain the same pattern of population decline in the following places: China[1], Cuba[2], Italy[3]? Even Norway's population is only increasing due to net migration[4]. Interesting stuff, and I doubt the reason is simply "capitalism does not incentivize women to have children". I suspect the reasons are more complex and interesting than that. [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-2nd-year-raises-long-term-growth-concerns-2024-01-17 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-population-drops-... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CUB/cuba/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CUB/cub... [3] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ITA/italy/population-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ITA/ita... [4] https://www.statista.com/topics/10080/demographics-of-norway/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/10080/demographics-of-norway...

tuatoru 2y ago
It's the same incentives for the leaders of those countries. Get women into the "workforce", i.e., paid employment that isn't bringing up their own children and those of their neighbours. Capitalism's insidious genius is that it forces its way of thinking on its competitors.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

I lament that women return to their jobs so quickly after giving birth (I mean mostly women in marriages and families of sufficient means, as working class women rarely have a choice today; these aren't the 1950s when a working class man could support a large family on his income alone). Children require a couple years with their mothers at least. I can understand the desire to do things other than raise children, but small children are a full-time job. Sadly, it's one that no longer has the esteem it once had and that it truly deserves. Even the phrase "stay-at-home mom" is kind of an underhanded slight against motherhood, as if it's something worse or inferior, less desirable. Motherhood is the bosom, the nursery of humanity! What contempt for humanity to look down on motherhood! Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a mother, or a mother who raises them, but to intentionally deprive children of motherhood is criminal. Think about what the child might internalize about their importance. Some talk about not wanting to be treated like baby-making machines. Well, procreation is not just about giving birth, but raising the child, and so if you delegate the responsibility of raising your children to someone else and not out of dire necessity, then does that not make you like the very thing you sought not to become? In the last 50 years or so, we've become extremely narrow-minded in this respect. It's "career or nothing!" Life is far richer, and never mind that careers are in the service of something and someone. If all is career, then what good is a career? If motherhood is lesser than, then humanity is lesser than, and where does that leave careers? Now, I don't think capitalism, industrialization, or urbanization are the problem here. It's a bit like using "inequality" as a proxy for other things (income inequality is not a problem as such, but people often use it as a proxy for other things). We also tend to look for external causes, like systems, when the problem is spiritual and from which systems emerge, and people lose interest as soon as you say that because it involves taking stock of your own corruption. And these corruptions manifest as and are transmitted through culture. Consumerism is one example. We have made the primary purpose of life to spend. Now, I like variety and material wealth, but I detest consumerism, this awful religion that worships material wealth, divinizes commodities, turns sex into a commodity, a medium of exchange, and an "experience" instead of a procreative act. What do children do? They eat into your budget, which means you can buy less stuff. They are antithetical to consumerism. And when sexual intercourse becomes commodified, then it become sterile. There is your demographic decline. I also don't especially like putting bandages on the status quo that supposedly make staying at home longer possible or easier, certainly not as a long term solution, as this only serves to reinforce and preserve the root of corruption and the consumerist system. It's like going into debt because you live beyond your means because you have a warped sense and priority of value, and then saying "We've got a problem: we're out of money. Let's borrow more to cover these debts and have more to spend." We're engaged in a spiritual Ponzi scheme, a death spiral, and the only way out is to bite the bullet and face our corruption. Only then, with a lot of spiritual bone breaking and pain, will we manage to get to a better place. People don't want to hear that. They want to close their eyes to the oncoming train. They want to keep going down the path of destruction either because they're addicted to it, they don't know any better, or they fear the pain of switching tracks. But a reckoning will happen, and is already happening. We can either start migrating to a new way now, or suffer the course correction (possibly extinction) later, but it will happen.