• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      ·
      5 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        5 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          5 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.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.

    • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You know what slows down inflation? An upper limit on the cost of goods. But hey im just a filthy commie.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It didn’t, not in the US, not in Soviet Union

        In the Soviet Union it caused rationing instead. Here’s your coupon for 1 stick of butter

        • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sure buddy those are the only two countries that have existed in the world. So can’t work anywhere.

          • iopq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It doesn’t work because it’s a stupid idea.

            If there’s a cap on the price of a type of good, then obviously only the lowest quality things get made. If you cap shoes to $10, they will only sell shoes imported from sweatshops.

            If you specify exactly how something is made, like $20 for made in USA shoes, they will import it from a sweatshop and sew a logo on it in the US.

            If you specify how much labor must be done in the US, there’s a chance nobody would bother since selling the $10 sweatshop shoe has better profit margins

            • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah thats not how the prices are set tho so your entire premise and basis is stupid. Have a good day. Do some reading.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d like to put Simona’s mind at ease because economics research into the relationship between wages and productivity shows a casual link where higher wages increase productivity. That is, higher wages force firms to invest in technology, equipment and training in order to offset the increased labor cost.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    5 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.

  • MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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.

    • buttfarts@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s why I tell hard-right folks that childless homosexuality is the cornerstone of God’s plan to save humanity

  • Feliskatos 🐱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 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.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 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

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Obviously, but how do you fix it without getting more workers? No scheme would work without people doing work.

            • iopq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Where are you going to get new doctors if everyone in your society is 70 years old

              Nurses are now optional? EMTs? Firefighters? Military personnel? Police?

              • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m talking about necessary for the species to carry on existing. And yes I grew up in a place with no police, no military, no EMTs, no firefighters. We had a nurse though. If someone did something that would normally involve the police, it was settled by the parties involved. (If you got drunk and drove through someone’s fence, they’d show you up at your house with a roll of barbed wire and some fence posts and you’d have to fix it. Possibly also round up any escaped sheep)

                • iopq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Enjoy being conquered by another country if you don’t have a military. Sure, the species will survive, but you may not

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    5 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?

  • Delta_V@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 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.

      • androogee (they/she)@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        “Fertility crisis” in the headline doesn’t refer to anyone’s inability to have children. It refers to the fertility rate, which is just statistics about how many kids are popping out.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I don’t, those people are selfish. Creating an unwilling life destined to be yet another cog in the machine while the world burns just to satisfy one’s own animalistic desire to have some form of genetic spawn. I silently cheer every time “struggling” couples miscarry and are unwittingly forced to do the right thing and not have kids.

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            MFW my parents didn’t even attempt to invent a time machine to ask if it was cool to conceive me or not

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Those people do not share your perspective. I do view it as largely subconsciously selfish, but your take is fucked up.

          • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            My take is fucked up only because we continue to ascribe reproduction as some noble, precious thing; rather than a wildly irresponsible and selfish act.

            Imagine a couple is driving a truckload of garbage to dump in the ocean. They have no reason to do this except some primal instinct that tells them to, all so they can point at the pile of floating garbage afterwards and say “look, that is MY garbage”.

            Now imagine on the way to the ocean, the truck loses a tire and they crash off the road next to a garbage dump, and all the garbage in their truck goes flying over the fence and into the dump.

            Then these people want and expect sympathy from others because they lost their garbage. They were really looking forward to standing on the beach and watching their garbage float free into the ocean and cause more of a mess. Oh no, boo hoo, fate accidentally caused them to do the right thing.

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Lol. There is nothing in existence which has a choice of its being thrown into existence. Is all existence immoral?

    • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The problem is the average age increases, and you’ll have more of an elderly population, meaning barely any people actually working while a ton of people are on pensions

      • Frokke@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s why I’m living now, not waiting for retirement. I got a good 15 years left, maybe 20 if I push it. Then I’m tapping out. Not a fan of keeping on living just for the sake of breathing.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      You run out of other people’s money. You can squeeze labor to starvation working in a salt mine. However, if most all people lose all their money, capitalism is done, and currently runaway capitalism is doing everything it can to increase that disparity.

      • gerbler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        This person was referencing the obtuse and infuriatingly repeated quote from Margaret Thatcher (rot in piss) “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.

        I don’t think I need to point out exactly why this quote is stupid.

      • pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Except the population (at least in my country) is quickly growing anyway because so many refugees come. And there will be far more if climate change continues at this speed.

        Edit: this comment isn’t directed against immigration (judging by the downvotes you probably interpreted it that way), I’m just stating the way it is rn

        • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          3 people in a 737 don’t make 100people non matter what side they seat at or how many times they change seats…but if they seat at the right place near an emergency exit with no seatbelt on, they could make it 2 people or even 1 person in the plane!

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 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?

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 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

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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.

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        How is it not easy? 90% of all jobs are automated or are going to be automated away in the next few years. I only see one social class that holds us back from de facto post-scarcity. We just need to get rid of it.

        • sushibowl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I commend your optimism, but personally I’m not sure automation is actually going to carry us through this in the time frames that we need. This population problem is going to hit really hard in the next twenty to thirty years. I don’t think we’re going to fully automate the world economy in that time.

          • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            2 thoughts:

            • the level of automation we have right now is enough to produce most of the stuff we need with very little assistance, as most of the useful stuff has been automated 30-40 years ago; while i agree that we are missing some important things, i think the real problem is the cleptocracy at the top
            • the stuff that is being automated now is really a problem more than a solution, and is going to stop progress by putting out of work software developers and other creative professions. I’m not saying it’s going to replace them all, but if it replaces enough job positions, it’s going to make the profession a risky choice for new students and that’s going to slow down the engine a lot
        • Asifall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not even close. Despite the hype being pushed by tech companies the latest wave of AI has extremely niche use cases and it’s already beginning to plateau.

  • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    I thought AI was going to take our jobs.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 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.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        You can have both a labor shortage and mass unemployment. It occurs when workers are skilled for an industry with decreasing or no demand while another industry that requires different skills has increasing demand.

        A good example of this is the high demand in the US for so called “Blue Collar” jobs. We have a shortage of trades people (Electricians, Plumbers, HVAC, etc) and far too many Business and Marketing people. There’s 100,000 MBA’s out there looking for a job and there’s 100,000 Plumbing Contractors trying to hire someone.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 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.

    • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      I really have no idea what these sentences mean. I feel like I’m having a stroke. Is it just me?

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        5 months ago

        Women have been responsible for most of the domestic labor throughout history. Over the last 100 years or so, economies have changed so that women were first able to work outside of the home, then expected to work outside the home, and now need to work outside of the home. (E.g., a single-income household can’t pay the minimum bills in most places in the US.)

        But doing labor outside the home means that labor can’t be done inside the home, because time is a finite resource; if you’re working 40 hours a week (plus commuting time), that’s 40 hours you don’t have for raising a family. That makes raising a family significantly more difficult.

        The solution is to change the structure of the economy so that it’s entirely reasonably possible to raise a family on a single income without living in grinding poverty.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well first, they claim ownership over all women, then rent them out to men.

            I want to say that’s just cynical sarcasm, but I’m not certain.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, TBF it’s hard to maximize profit when you’re head is in a basket in front of the guillotine, sooooooooo I guess they need to figure shit out before then?

            • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Billionaires are like an appendix. They don’t really do anything but as long as everything works normally no-one cares, but right now they’re causing a lot of pain and have to be removed. Society will function as normal just like your gut post appendectomy.