-
If we really thought about it, there will be a raising amount of people who don’t have a job and will not be able to get a job ever due to the decline in human labour needs, which lead to fewer jobs being offered globally which means that with fewer humans around there will be a higher chance for people to get a good job.
-
Humans consume resources, with less humans around there will be more resources for each humans and they will collectively consume less resources in total.
I do agree. You can’t run the world economy like a pyramid scheme. Not sure there are “too many people” or just technology lag, and I don’t believe EVERYTHING is zero sum (we have increased efficiency in a lot of ways, and solar energy & nuclear don’t seem like they use as many resources as they provide) but easier on the earth if we don’t have as many.
I am not sure it’s even an unpopular opinion, though.
The problem isn’t scarcity in resources or lack of available work, the problem is that everything is zero sum and resources wind up locked out because there are a couple hundred assholes that look at numbers on a screen like it’s the only thing that validates their existence.
People are starving and can’t buy houses because people like Bezos or whoever have 20,000 million dollars they’ll never use sitting in some bank account they forgot about, but they need more, so they disenfranchise the class that brings them wealth.
Less jobs = better margins, but that all rests on the assumption that people absolutely must work full time and for the lowest bid
We all may as well grab shovels and bury the wealth of the Earth in a big hole in the ground because that’s what happens when we inflate the worth of the wealthy. Resources just vanish into the ether
Yo that’s great! Less people.means more resources for everyone! More nature, less pollution, less density (which makes crime and such more noticeable)
…but it won’t make billionaire as many billions. Unacceptable!
Humans don’t have a modern economic or social model for what is about to happen to most of the developed Western world as well as Russia and China.
Having a smaller cohort of young people means less consumption, fewer children being born. Before you get your dander up screaming about how great that is for the environment. Just remember that fewer young people means the pace of technological change is likely to slow down, there will be fewer young people to support a larger elderly population which will likely mean higher taxes and yet fewer children.
Japan has been going through this process for years. However they were a single developed country in a sea of developed countries that had rising working aged populations. They offshored production to countries with labor pools and were able to position themselves very well because of that. That is not the scenario the rest of the developed world will face.
The world will likely be a very different place in 20 years. Nations historically held together with ethnic majorities that have passed the point of no return to repopulate may no longer exist in that span of time.
Population reduction is a problem for one reason, and that it’s a problem that capitalism can’t solve before populations revolt.
All economies, and every economic model is structured to do ONE thing and that is resource distribution. Money is the tool to grease the tracks, it makes the whole thing more efficient. If we are producing greater and greater levels of resources, but capitalism can’t get that spread out to the people who need it, then it’s clear as day capitalism has failed.
Like everything you’ve ever heard from a neoliberal; that line about capitalism being the greatest tool to to spread resources? Propaganda. It doesn’t pass the smell test. 2+2≠5. Being the most efficient system? Propaganda. The private insurance market, alone, demonstrates the exact opposite.
Corporatocracy demands growth at all costs, including human cost, including livability of societies, all will be sacrificed at the alter. Culture is lost, everything becomes the same repeating off ramps for 2000miles. And we’re told this is something to be proud of.
Why do we track income inequality? Because it’s a barometric pressure gauge on the middle class; when the middle class/petit bourgeoisie reaches boiling, the upper mid/lower upper - the voting class/bourgeois overthrows the ruling. Its the calling card of every revolution to ever have happened, anywhere, everywhere. We are in the midst of a changing of the guard now - hence the rise of fascism, funded by billionaires, who are scared of the peoples justice. Turns out, young people don’t like to pay their own way, pay for every minor aspect of raising children at a premium and then pay for their parents early retirements knowing they won’t get to retire, or buy a house, go in vacation, ever. All while being told everything is THEIR fault. You know what sounds better than being sacrificed at that alter? Killing everyone who has a hand in it. If your life is already _null, might as well take out those who decided that for you.
No one could’ve seen that coming
But there’s also another way forward, it’s just not promoted on the privately owned news, and that’s to get rid of rich people, manually distribute resources instead of relying on a mystical market to find a conscious. It’s absolutely bonkers to just have faith in a market. We have all this incredible tech and then when it comes to spreading it, maintaining it, or making society a better place to live, we abandon all that intelligence.
Humans don’t need a job to survive.
