• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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
      29
      ·
      10 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

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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.

  • Feliskatos 🐱@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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
      7
      ·
      10 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
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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
          ·
          10 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
              ·
              10 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
                ·
                10 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
                  ·
                  10 months ago

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

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 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
        7
        ·
        10 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.

  • Delta_V@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        10 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
            1
            ·
            10 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
          ·
          10 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
            ·
            10 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
          ·
          10 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
      ·
      10 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

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      8
      ·
      10 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?

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

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

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 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

  • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
      6
      ·
      10 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.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 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.

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I think the consensus is that it’s mostly as a result of women having greater reproductive choices, greater access to family planning services, and more women choosing to delay having children or choosing to not have children at all, often so they can instead focus on a career.

      Edit: I want to point out that what I’m describing is the consensus, as I understand it, of mainstream experts in the US. However, I believe there is evidence that this consensus opinion is not entirely accurate. If I’m not mistaken, surveys indicate that there are a fair number of people who would like to have children but are not because the right circumstances are not present for them to feel secure enough to have children. Many of the people who are not having children would have them if they felt more financially, romantically, and/or emotionally secure. Therefore, it’s possible that it’s not so much that people are choosing not to have children as it is that the necessary conditions for making people feel secure enough to have children are not present for a large number of people.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 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.

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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.