163
submitted 4 months ago by TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 132 points 4 months ago

"A reduction in the share of workers can lead to labor shortages, which may raise the bargaining power of employees and lift wages — all of which is ultimately inflationary,” Simona Paravani-Mellinghoff, managing director at BlackRock, wrote in an analysis last year.

And while net immigration has helped offset demographic problems facing rich countries in the past, the shrinking population is now a global phenomenon. “This is critical because it implies advanced economies may start to struggle to ‘import’ labour from such places either via migration or sourcing goods,” wrote Paravani-Mellinghoff.

This is just mask-off capitalism. They want people to have a lot of babies, and/or large numbers of poor and desperate people migrating into the country, so that they have a constant, reliable source of cheap labor.

[-] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 64 points 4 months ago

Paying workers more is inflationary, but raising the cost of goods because you control the supply chain is "business"

Basically, raising product costs to cover increased labour costs are bad because actual workers are getting that money instead of the wealthy capital class.

I wish people understood boycotting more. Sure 6 companies own everything, but remember when the cost of a barrel of oil went significantly negative because people weren't driving for 2 weeks?

If people collectively decided they didn't want to buy anything but the absolute necessary staples for a few months there would be an absolute catastrophe in the supply chain and they'd be forced to lower prices significantly.

They may not lower prices forever, but modern business is built entirely on supply chain logistics. If people stop buying anything, or buy things exclusively to return them we would see some serious changes

[-] Talaraine@fedia.io 33 points 4 months ago

I've tried to convince people that if we can have a No Nut November, we ought to be able to put together a No-Sales September or something. These mentally defective executives would absolutely go back to taking care of the customer if this were a practice.

[-] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 18 points 4 months ago

We should definitely do November for it - holiday shopping and Black Friday specifically.

Hell, if we could just boycott Black Friday and the week before and after, which is the biggest retail spend of the year, we’d probably make a serious dent. They aren’t even good deals, but good luck convincing anyone to skip it who doesn’t already.

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 30 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I knew even before I opened the article it’s gonna be about fewer babies = fewer workers. Remember folks, when an article cites the “economy”, it just means the businesses and industries’ profits.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 88 points 4 months ago

Infinite growth is an absolutely insane bar to set for the economy.

The lowered birthrates are because we're getting ground into dust - my engineering team of twenty millennials has two folks with kids and two folks who openly plan on having kids... we're aging out of the window and it's not that we're trying and failing - most of us just don't want a fucking family. We're too fucking busy already.

[-] punkwalrus@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago

Mental health never being addressed, so we're also too tired.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"Burned outs just another word for not taking your bosses shit" - sing it to the tune of Me and Bobby McGee.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AncientFutureNow@lemmy.world 87 points 4 months ago

Remember kids, "the economy" is double-speak for "record breaking profits for the rich".

[-] themadcodger@kbin.earth 26 points 4 months ago

Personally, I always substitute it with "rich people's yacht money"

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 82 points 4 months ago

Half my life was spent fearing the result of limitless population growth and contemplating the inevitability of war and famine to shock population levels back down to sustainable levels. They warned us about this starting at least as far back as the sixties.

I see organic population collapse as a categorically good thing.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 27 points 4 months ago

Long-term, possibly. But if the collapse happens too quickly it may cause a lot of issues. A slow steady decline would be best but may be difficult to achieve.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 18 points 4 months ago

The oligarchy is welcome to not poison people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Feliskatos@lemmy.world 75 points 4 months ago

There are more people in the world than ever before and we have folks writing news stories telling us there's a crisis building and that we need to have more kids?

They're farming us like ranch animals.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

Infinite growth requires infinite bodies to feed it.

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Unfortunately I don't have infinite fucks to give

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

I think our planet would be described as a free-range human labour farm, to anyone who was able to view it independently. Well, lots of it not so free-range. Its why they're coming for reproductive freedom. They're doing for the same reason a beef farmer wouldn't give their cows reproductive freedom.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Look at long term trends, population is already dropping in East Asia and Europe

Sure, there might be more people in Nigeria, but they are not paying into your retirement

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 60 points 4 months ago

HEY WORLD LEADERS: make the world a less shitty place, so I don’t feel guilty about bringing a child into it, and I’ll rawdog more often. Do we have a deal?

[-] spizzat2@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago
[-] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 52 points 4 months ago

The problem with capitalism, is eventually you run out of other people's labor

[-] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

Capitalism is just a complex pyramid scheme. Change my mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Delta_V@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago

In a world with too many humans already, can you imagine painting a drop in the birth rate as somehow a bad thing?

lol

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

I don’t really care about its impact on the economy, but I do feel for those who are attempting to have a child to no avail. I can only imagine how soul crushing that process can be.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months ago

The solution is obviously to take away womens' reproductive rights. Duh.

[-] PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com 44 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Looks like not having kids in protest of how shitty things are is working. Everyone keep it up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 43 points 4 months ago

Less people means less stress on the environment though.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

And more houses, and more job opportunities.

We'll be.....the new people will be fine!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RootAccess@lemmynsfw.com 42 points 4 months ago

The best way you can help fight climate change is to not have children.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The world needs more babies.

Does it?

Or do we just need to embrace migrants?

“A reduction in the share of workers can lead to labor shortages, which may raise the bargaining power of employees and lift wages — all of which is ultimately inflationary,” Simona Paravani-Mellinghoff, managing director at BlackRock, wrote in an analysis last year.

"Have babies," said the billionaire, "or else who am I going to exploit in the future?"

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Or, better yet, do we need to embrace the idea that infinite growth isn’t possible, and adopt economic systems that do not rely on it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago

It is a basic math problem.. they keep raising housing prices ain't nobody going to have kids when 1500 in rent is due monthly

[-] shasta@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

How is your rent so cheap?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ChexMax@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

$1500 a month? I wish!

[-] Cornpop@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

Sounds awesome. Bring it on. Less people is better fuck the infinite growth economy

[-] sushibowl@feddit.nl 11 points 4 months ago

The problems listed in the article are real. we've built a system:

  1. Where a lot of economic growth stems from an increasing supply of (cheap) labour
  2. That relies on people of working age being able to financially support a retiree class.

Both of these are going to fall apart if the population stops growing. The smaller group of working age people won't be enough to support the amount of retirees, and without population growth there's no economic growth.

It's sad that economists correctly see all this coming but then conclude that the only solution is "make more babies." It's short term thinking almost by definition, because in the limit it's rather obvious that at some point we will not have the resources to support any more people. And the closer we get to that limit the less each individual person will have (even worse when wealth is not equally distributed).

Unfortunately I don't see any economist putting forth a plan that accepts population decline and alters the system to account for it. It wouldn't be easy but it seems no one is even trying.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

That means the supply of workers in many countries is quickly diminishing.

I thought AI was going to take our jobs.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 13 points 4 months ago

Of course it is! We are simultaneously facing a labor shortage and mass unemployment. The important thing is to keep being angry and frightened, the specific subject you're angry about at any given time is flexible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Right? They must not think AI and automation can replace very many human laborers, otherwise they wouldn't consider declining birth rates to be such a crisis.

[-] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 months ago

Turns out that whole idea of women being the primary bearers of hundred of years of exploited reproductive labor might have had some weight to it, huh.

All that labor being redirected into "L'economie" means that, at base, you'll have less children.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

Many Boomers voted their progeny away when they put Reagan in office.

[-] thenextguy@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

How is this a fertility issue? Are people unable to have children, or just unwilling?

[-] zettajon@lemdro.id 10 points 4 months ago

Sperm motility issue rates are rising worldwide and I found out I was one of them this year. Mid 30s, waited to start a family while we went further in our careers. Now that we're ready, we got hit with this, fuck me for being responsible I guess.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

There's no economic reason the nominal GDP of any country or the world in general has to continuously increase. The important metric is per capita production. As long as people get continuously more productive through innovation, standards of living will continue to increase.

At the national level, vying for long term economic power in the world, a higher and younger population is going to be a huge advantage very soon and countries should be trying to get as many immigrants in their borders as they can. But instead they are...going a different direction.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Does anybody think about the fact that every year on average 9-10 million people die every year from starvation and malnutrition related deaths. The vast majority of these numbers are children under 5 years old. The 9-10 million number was pre-covid. There was an uptick due to the supply chain issues. I think I read an article saying the number for 2021 was around 14 million. Again, mostly children.

It's mostly kids in 3rd world Africa, middle east, India, etc.

We over here need to have more kids though. Because profits.

Idk I just think all this is dumb. Fuck capitalism and the system we have. It's all fucked.

[-] RandomGuy79@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Do not worry. When you refuse to live on in absolute poverty with children, your rukers will import those that will. The capitalist machine marches ON

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
163 points (87.2% liked)

News

23275 readers
3465 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS