• gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    The labor market is a market. It is regulated by supply and demand. The good being traded for money is human labor.

    If supply goes down (fewer workers being born), prices go up; that means, higher wages.

    If supply goes up (more workers being born), prices go down; that means, lower wages.

  • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Fortunately population numbers are returning to sane levels, and doing so without bloodshed, famine or diseases. What a fortune.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days 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.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days 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.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days 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?”

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

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

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 days 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
            ·
            2 days 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
            ·
            2 days 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
              2
              ·
              2 days 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.

  • Feliskatos 🐱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days 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
      ·
      2 days 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
      ·
      3 days 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
          ·
          2 days 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
              ·
              1 day 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
                ·
                23 hours 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
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

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

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Good, lower OECD birth rates means member countries can open the borders more for immigrants looking for better prospects, better compensation and benefits for jobs in high cost of living areas, and less stupid hiring processes. Every labor shortage is a capital shortage. Also notice how CNN quotes executives and no labor leaders.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days 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
      64
      ·
      3 days 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
        ·
        3 days 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
          ·
          3 days 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
      3 days 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
      ·
      3 days 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
        ·
        3 days 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
          ·
          2 days 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
            ·
            2 days 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
              ·
              1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days 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.