Is There a Way Out of Population Collapse?

[@GoodTimesBadTimes]

🌱🌰 Check out "The Walnut Fund", the world's first online investment platform that allows you to invest in fully managed walnut plantations: www.thewalnutfund.com 📌 Support GTBT on Patreon! www.patreon.com/GTBT ➡ Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/GoodTimesBadTimes

[@tyalikanky]

Yeah, but you need to live in province, build your houses from cheapest materials, your consumer level must be really limited and % of any births would be from teenage pregnancies.

[@theconqueringram5295]

First it was souvenir plots in Scotland, then it was blue chip art and now it's walnuts. These scams are getting nuttier and nuttier.

[@jager6863]

You did a good job of presenting all the facts. The problem is governments and their socialist "cradle to grave" policies that take wealth from producers and waste it on non-producers. Also, women need to not work and stay home to raise children. This would reduce the total labor force and raise wages for men. Most college degrees are useless and only STEM should be focused upon. Housing needs to be single family and pensions need to be private, not government run. Corporate, Income, energy and capital gains taxes need to be eliminated and the state should tax non-food, tax purchases at 10% at point of sale. Food, medicine and clothing should never be taxed as it's immoral. It doesn't pay for a man to get married, as in divorce a woman will take have your assets, your children and the state sides with them. Older woman who have careers can't find men equal or superior in income to them, whom they will marry, as these men would rather have younger, fertile woman with no relationship or emotional baggage. These problems are all government produced in the West buy liberal, socialist, progressives. The poor countries don't matter, as they produce little except resources they dig out of the dirt. Europe can easily save itself, but has chosen not to do so.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Where tax on chillidness in Soviets union. And dekrit 770 in comunis rumania

[@AprezaRenaldy]

Where tax on chillidness in Soviets union. And dekrit 770 in comunis rumania

[@julianbrabsche728]

Before the start of the French revolution France actually had more people than Russia.

[@erwanmarie8756]

True, France was dubbed the China of Europe...

[@DerDop]

Russia won World War two because they were the 2nd most populous country back then... won is a big word tho

[@mikexstad1121]

Now compare the living standards of France and Russia

[@jager6863]

@@DerDop Russia had 14 million soldiers at the start of WW2 and lost 14 million men, ending with an army of 14 million men. 16 million other Russians lost their lives in WW2 as well. After the War, Russia had no "Baby Boom" and these children not born, had no children in the 1970's. Russia is collapsing and it can't be saved. same for Ukraine.

[@drttgb4955]

@@DerDop "won"

[@R_Alexander029]

If i learnt anything from this video: long term predictions can be astonishingly wrong.

[@felisenpai9625]

Exactly, something I been telling people for years, that every population decline is always followed by growth, this is first time we are experiencing just extremely slow decline in comparison to war or disease. Humanity will not die out, those preditions are just stupid. What the rise will look like? That's unpredictable but it will happen, we can only help it out by changing how our economies work, how humans are born etc.

[@R_Alexander029]

@felisenpai9625 well yeah, there are more young fertile people today than they were people 1000 years ago.

[@AngkatanNamwaran]

@@felisenpai9625 I agree, but back then our societies were much simpler than today, the system that we've created now relies on constant growth and our solutions are often band aid solutions and if the birthrate declines further, the system is going to collapse. Obviously, humans could rebound from this, but it's going to get bad first before it gets better.

[@neptunianman]

@@felisenpai9625 Because they maintained above replacement birth rates. We are pretty much in unchartered territory with our current demographic crisis.

[@krakken-]

People had a lot of kids when it was economically rational for them to do so. That is, when your children were your workforce, people were economically incentivized to have large families. But industrialization, of agriculture especially, meant that large families no longer make economic sense. They are now a cost, not revenue driver. So people make rational choices and have smaller families. Now instead of revenue being driven by many children, revenue is driven by all adults entering the workforce. It's all people making rational economic choices for themselves.

[@razvancampan9465]

The children yearn for the mines

[@AmericanAdvancement]

@@razvancampan9465The popularity of Minecraft shows it

[@GimmeDePusiBoss]

The solution is to re-legalize Child-Labour.

[@CR-rm4iy]

in poor households in the UK, they tend to kick children out of the household once the child benefit money stops coming in, often out of the same (subsidised for life) house, that they were able to get in the first place, due to having children, years ago

[@Mix1mum]

​@@CR-rm4iy Just cuz they aren't raising kids anymore doesn't mean they don't deserve housing. The problem is that new houses aren't being built, not that the last generations aren't dying off fast enough.

[@AirShark95]

Population isn't growing because people need to a world to "live" in, not just "survive" in.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Spot on

[@tessmaru7285]

So in the 19-20th centuries people had peaceful prosperous lives? 😅

[@Vandelberger]

No it’s educated women who have always had less kids.

[@rassilkrishnan3120]

No, but they had what was in atleast in their minds a good enough world in terms of Quality of life and future prospects to bring more children into. They don't have the frame of reference of modern conveniences we take for granted now. As far as they are concerned, what we would now call absolute poverty conditions were good enough for them.

[@neptunianman]

Hard pill to swallow, but we have it easier nowadays than any time in history.

[@RigbyWilde]

Yes, actually making the conditions for raising children affordable again, and bringing back the societal incentives and communities back. Edit: Yes, my previous comment was incomplete.

[@pidu4588]

Won't happen until the negative effects of population decline have become too great.

[@Elemblue2]

This is exactly correct. Systems have slowly been designed to "customer trap" you, and suck wealth out. A huge industry has evolved around children. The black hole of energy consumption aimed at the people who are trying to make more people for making more people makes it so there can be less people. Not to mention that theres a hilarious shift where you have to pay for childcare while you both work that is the equivalent of one of the jobs. Such a trap. Not everyone needs the good life. But affordable food staples, decent education, and acceptable housing costs in NON-DYSTOPIAN HOUSING (Like theres a tree nearby, and the park isnt made of needles) is all it takes. Family is enough for alot of people.

[@DrakonPhD]

Again, the poorest areas have the highest birth rates, and countries with tons of childcare subsidies still have terrible birthrates. Its a cultural thing, not an economic one. But long term, the culture will change, as those who value children and legacy actually HAVE that legacy, and typically spread it to their children (who are also the only children around).

[@dallastaylor5479]

But that has already been tried, including no taxes for life, subsidized housing, additional stipends, etc. It hasn't worked.

[@wastedviking6280]

Thank you

[@imperialdragon111]

Core Issue: Advanced civilization creates **sub-replacement fertility**. Key Numbers: - Need: **2.1** children/woman - Reality: **1.5** Europe, heading below **2.1** globally - Result: **73%** population loss (S.Korea), **72%** (China), **62%** (Poland) by 2100 Primary Barriers: 1. **Female education > Male education** 2. **Job/housing instability** 3. **Relationship instability** Solutions Tried: - Money: **Failed** - Migration: **Inadequate** - Family policy: **Insufficient** Only Success: **Israel (3.0)** via **security pressure + religion** Trajectory: Peak **10.3B** → Universal decline → **Potential extinction**

[@Elemblue2]

Thank you for just posting how the numbers ACTUALLY work. Everyones treating it like you can take any arbitrary amount of humans and squash them together to get more. Also, things that have not been tried: Easy affordable Housing in non-dystopian settings.

[@tyalikanky]

Just live in province instead of city. Cheaper house, energy and food.

[@everything373-z3b]

It's unfixable.

[@jamesjjames]

I think short of a nuclear war or an asteroid strike it will be highly unlikely humanity as a whole would go extinct because small and conservative pockets across the globe will keep doing what they've always done. But before that I would expect a widespread economic collapse at some stage. And because older generations are larger than younger ones there may eventually be some kind of populist movement to 'cull' older people who will by then be seen as an economic drain. I hope not, but we can already see mass online hate towards "the boomers." Anyway, if the economic collapse drastically alters the structure of society and if contraception is no longer available maybe then we'll finally see a reversal of the depopulation trend, as after all, humanity historically had more children during poorer times. If not, there will just be even further collapse, 90s post-Soviet style or worse.

[@AmericanAdvancement]

The problem stems from a problem as old as civilization itself: rural vs urban. Cities cannot generate population surpluses due to the confined nature of how people live, but they gather people to meld minds and produce major breakthroughs. Rural locations are the source of population growth but they don’t produce many innovations due to rural populaces being more conservative and risk averse. This cycle of urbanization and de urbanization has been seen for as long as people have been seen for as long as there have been people. What’s different about today is that urbanization is happening at the same time globally. Just over half of everyone alive today live in urban areas with that percentage changing depending on country. What I believe is going to happen is that cities and heavily urbanized nations will see major population declines while rural countries will see less of a population shrinkage. A major indicator of this being the case will be a global swing towards right wing politics as is the case in the U.S. At current projections the nation is looking at a permanent Republican majority within 20 years

[@QuizmasterLaw]

when i was a kid the world was 4 billion people. it's now 8 billion. back then the usa was 200 million. now its 340 million. back then everyone was worried about overpopulation. now everyone's worried about "population collapse". i wasn't worried then, and am not worried now.

[@bodaciouschad]

"As a tadpole, the water in this pot was tap cold. As a frog it's boiling. I wasn't worried then and I'm not worried now"- you.

[@1joshjosh1]

Good point

[@FleetAdmirable]

@@bodaciouschad Population collapse is just fear of a disappearing underclass thats exploitable for labor. Places without poor people are successful and peaceful, importing migrants from poverty and warzones brings with it obviously poverty and crime. Back to normality. Nothing ever happens.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@bodaciouschad yah of course i spent 50 years in ignorance as opposed to reading and publishing voraciously stupid

[@joseaguirre744]

To be fair underpopulation is a lesser issue than overpopulation. A wave of conservatism & women popping 3 children will end it. Probably won’t happen in this generation but people will definitely not go extinct in the next 200 years.

[@JordanScottMills]

Unironically we just weren't meant to live like this, Uncle Ted was right.

[@pistolen87]

And if we lived like we're "meant" to live (hunter gatherer), earth could only sustain around 5 million people.

[@Thatonepersonyouheard]

WRONG!

[@hydoffdhagaweyne1037]

We know how to solve this issue, but nobody got the balls to do it

[@braedensegawa2572]

​@@hydoffdhagaweyne1037 big boom time?

[@michaelanthony8073]

@@hydoffdhagaweyne1037

[@ukraine_tbic]

Short answer: no Long answer: people want the good life these days. I’m 38 and I’ve got a dog, I’m a failure to Christian society…

[@dannylive3000]

lmfao same

[@Youbetternowatchthis]

Hello there fellow single dog man club members. Can't be all single cat ladies anyways. We are doing our part!

[@TheLiamster]

I’m 21, single and autistic with a cat. I don’t intend on ever having children

[@ArianeQube]

It's not that they want the "good life". Simply many people have realized that there is no rational reason to create another human. As long as life is fundamentally meaningless, they see no reason why you would put another human in this situation. PS: yes, yes, you make your own purpose, bla bla bla... if it makes you sleep better, tell yourself whatever story you like :)

[@qboxer]

Don’t write yourself off. You have accomplished a lot more than most, and you are at an age where you still have a few years left to have kids and the energy needed for them. God bless you!

[@SlapStyleAnims]

Millions must breed

[@togerboy5396]

🥵 If you say so, I’ll breed millions.

[@CirBam24]

No, Billions

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Or not.

[@antwandadon2341]

Nothing ever happens.

[@chilldude30]

Me and your mom are working on it

[@chrisbeer5685]

At one point in human history there was a genetic bottleneck, and it is estimated there were only a few thousand humans in the world at that time. To think that being at an all-time high of 8,000,000,000 a SLOWING of population increase is the beginning of the end of humanity is insane. I view it more as a maybe painful, but necessary adjustment. There was an experiment where they let rats freely breed in a confined space with plenty of food and water. Eventually the rats were absolutely packed and started showing erratic behaviors, such as males isolating themselves and refusing to court females and females abandoning their young. Sound familiar? The population eventually collapsed. We live in a finite universe, expecting endless exponential population growth is simply unrealistic.

[@Elemblue2]

It was around 20000 people in north east africa and a few hundred neaderthals. The bottle neck was the ice age and that those specific humans figured out how to use a bow. All other species of humans and other tribes of homo sapiens died. The rat experiment was a designed dystopia and not a model for our society. Every animal would collapse under the conditions in that model. There was an identical experiment done where the rats were given fufilling lives and things to do, and that model did not end remotely the same, even though they were packed. The human breeding cycle is not a numbers multiplying game. There is a specific age of breeding population and they specifically determin what is possible in the future. If your using total numbers, your going to look back one day with massive alarm when you realize thats not how it works.

[@Woottonorganics-cy1fu]

It's called 'functional extinction'.

[@olafsigursons]

1st the universe is infinite. 2nd earth is in a close system with the sun. At human scale the energy we received from the sun if infinite, or way more then we need at least. 3rd Energy is the universal value. Anything is possible given enough energy. That said, a decline in population is not a catastrophe.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

It's not about population s8ze per se but that the economic system is built on perpetual growth. Humanity will be fine but the economy 100% won't.

[@semarusky]

Any reasonably responsible person who cannot afford a good, prosperous life. Will not condemn his children to it.

[@golagiswatchingyou2966]

People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe. Perhaps the issue is the culture, the elites and the economic conditions that allows people to marry and have kids. Most young people today can't even buy a house.

[@Azmodaeus49]

I can't afford to have kids, anyway I'll not contribute to this so called breeding phase

[@DmT922ha]

I assume you are a westener or Japanese/Korean? The rest of the world doesn't really share that sentiment..

[@cyberfunk3793]

@@golagiswatchingyou2966 "People in the past lived lives of pure poverty and had more kids than we do today by a long shot across the globe." Yes and a) they were dumb by todays standards b) did it because the chance of a kid not making to adulthood was much higher.

[@everything373-z3b]

So, if you have a good life, have kids, and suddenly everything goes down, what should you do?

[@campelodemagalhaes]

The Mouse Experiment is a better guide than Malthus

[@andrew9371]

Mouse utopia

[@NightridingDoom]

it's called paying a living wage

[@Tullochr105]

The Catholics were a big promotor of the "Family Wage". A Wage large enough to support a partner and children.

[@CovocNexus]

That's just a lie people tell themselves. The wealthier people get the less they have children. That's why the faster a country develops, the faster their birth rates will collapse. That's the truth you are avoiding. A country could increase the wages of everyone tomorrow and it wouldn't improve birthrates, in fact, it would do the opposite.

[@everything373-z3b]

Funny how poor people have more children then.

[@sjoormen1]

@@everything373-z3b People are getting smarter.

[@ScarletKnightmare]

Income is inversely correlated with fertility rates

[@thecanadiankiwibirb4512]

Soon, humanity will die, drowning in electric dreams.

[@DoubleBourbonBaconCheeseBurger]

USA needs to subsidize Amish and just start amish populations in every state especially the mid west and plain states.

[@PhilHug1]

Some guesses on how to increase birth rates: 1. Change culture around when it’s ok and normal to have kids. Right now the mindset for many is college - job - get promoted / save for a house - get house - have kids. Have it seem fine to have kids while in college or the early stages of your career. The media can play a big role here. The suggestions below will, I think, make this more practical 2. If #1 fails, reduce the number of years on average it takes for a person to feel established enough to have kids. A big thing that can be done in deemphasizing the need for college for a lot of careers outside of STEM, medicine, and law. Many jobs use college degrees as nothing more than a candidate filtering mechanism and the results is degree inflation and tons of college debt (which also impedes having kids). Reducing the years to become established would give couples a larger fertility window 3. Legal paternally leave for all jobs if the employee has been with the company for at least a year or two. However, for office jobs, the emphasis should be on telework instead of paternity leave. Maybe 2 days a week of telework. If couples have alternating telework days, that covers most of the days kids would need to be cared for. 4. Perhaps tax breaks if a family of the live near the grandparents (who can watch the kids some days) or maybe parents can designate one or two people who are family or friends to be daytime guardians for their kids and those people get tax breaks 5. Subsidized or free daycare. Big university (with huge endowments) and large companies could be legally obligated to have a daycare site. However, I’m skeptical that this could be a major solution (a piece of the solution at best) because it seems you have the issue of either not staff or not enough daycare facilities (which results in waitlist). Kids watched by a combination of teleworking parents and family/friends seems much more sustainable to me 6. Free child birth and free/subsidized IVF

[@johnhalat]

Children will be common again when they will be seen as necessary. They are not needed nowadays. We´ve lost the religious (primitive orthodoxy) and animal (poverty and lack of education or technology) factors, the only that is left is the financial stimulous. Pensions should be given to those parents who are able to have more than 3 kids, increase payments for each new kid. Women should have their retirment anticipated in 1 year for each child. Priviliages for parents with kids for job opportunities, discounts for houses and cars, telework, leaves, etc. Single people would need to pay higher taxes. Definitely not liberal. It´s unfair and costly but the issue is real. Perhaps science will be able to prolong life in 50 or 100 years, perhaps robots will be able to raise our kids.

[@-AirKat-]

@@johnhalatthe expected retirement part has the opposite effect, discouraging women from having kids since that would mean the cessation of their careers

[@Mandanara]

add basic housing built by the state to force a drop in commercial and second hand housing pricing. Penalise keeping empty housing and commercial properties with unrealistic rents that sit vacant for years.

[@unematrix]

All of these issues can all be solved with just 1 solution: give people money. Either raise wages or implement UBI (even if it's just for parents) and people will suddenly be able to afford children.

[@ChristianDoretti]

Having kids isn't definitely an option for most people

[@OmegaTrooper]

We’ve also really denigrated having families for several generations now through supercharged individualism. People see having kids as an imposition that they “cannot live their own lives” and truly “discover themselves”

[@AmericanAdvancement]

The global population is going through the largest change in human history. Generations of population growth were slower than the imminent population decline that we are experiencing. With all of that said, humanity is not facing extinction but rather a far more extreme version of historical norms. The rule of thumb throughout history is that cities need a constant influx of people from the countryside to sustain population. It’s a lot harder to have a lot of children in an apartment than it is to have them on a farm or a more rural area. This has happened in China many times, in Rome, and countless other empires throughout time. What does all of this mean? It means that the world population will be smaller, more conservative, and more religious. This is already playing out in the United States and Israel

[@Jupa]

I don't see why we just don't take the countryside, and push it somewhere else

[@Dumbledore6969x]

The real question is, will it matter in an age where robots and AI take most jobs? People are extrapolating a version of capitalism that may not exist 10 years from now

[@Elemblue2]

Itll take 30 years.

[@Dumbledore6969x]

@ not necessarily

[@everything373-z3b]

They are too basic now, and the problems is here.

[@Dumbledore6969x]

@ wrong

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Yeah good luck with that... will the robots buy the s that the other robots make too? Or how do yiu think that will happen? Do you think they'll just give you Ai personal slave robot for free? They already have you, why should you have one too? Naw... not happening.

[@Tullochr105]

The Catholics were a big promotor of the "Family Wage". A Wage large enough to support a partner and children.

[@AirShark95]

"Sounds like communism to me" - Americans

[@Tullochr105]

@@AirShark95 Lol, other fellow American communist like Henry Ford also promoted ideas like the 40 hr. Work Week and the Weekend.

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

Can you imagine the bost in income when both parents have a living wage as opposed to one being the provider I can imagine them going traveling more or have more kids and they just hire a babysitter or leave the kids to grandparents occasionally when one parent can’t be available tho it’ll be less often

[@Tullochr105]

​@@USSAnimeNCC- Personally, I am agnostic about the composition of a household. If both parents make a family wage, the surplus would create the opportunity for increased household income and consumption or increase time spent away from work.

[@Mandanara]

​​@@Tullochr105 that's because Ford was an engineer and not an MBA parasite.

[@Jana-se4kv]

There is no demographic crisis, there is only demographic normalization. The current number of humans is already too much to be sustainable. Sustaining population growth at the same exponential rate of the past decades would mean certain extinction through overpopulation. I say there is no 'crisis' because this is a self-solving issue. Post-industrial societies are simply naturally reacting to the changed circumstances of automation technology, modern medicine and cognitive labor economy. There is zero evidence to believe that the current downward trend will simply continue until extinction. It is much more likely that the population growth rate will plateau again at a lower level, which would be better for every person and the environment. The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly.

[@therustler30]

"The main crisis is that the current generation will have to carry a huge burden, paying for care of the elderly." Yes and that crisis will truly be a crisis, we aren't bacteria on a petri dish, when a part of the population becomes extremely overburdened we don't just die off and start breeding again once there is enough foodstuffs around us, there will be extremely tough decisions made to navigate this issue.

[@chrisreed4065]

How do you run a modern society when 60% of the population is over 60, that's where we're headed. I don't know how we'll keep the lights on, let alone go green. It takes young brillant minds to figure out new tech and young hands to build it, that's not going to happen when the youth is trying and failing to maintain current infrastructure while taking care of 1.5 times their number in old folks.

[@spasik_m]

Let's just build our own pension. W/o relying on youth

[@haraldsamak9494]

Androids are the answer to the problem

[@Mix1mum]

That huge burden is only if we allow a minority to horde all the massive gains in productivity. In the 50s, sure 7 ppl supported 1 on social security. Now in the 2020 it's 3-1, but we are waaaaaaaaaaaay more productive. Which means, we have the resources. No one NEEDS to suffer. Except were orientated around a economic system that has suffering as foundational, a selling point even. Population decline is only an extinction level event to capitalists.

[@adventureinallthings]

I've watched this story of demographic collapse for years now and watched people analyse and study it to work out why ...but ... It seems to me people miss the most obvious things of all. The religious whether they be orthodox Jews or traditional catholics , the Amish, or those that follow the Taliban in Afghanistan have tons of kids. The reasons are very simple, people like having sex and will try create conditions in which that is more likely than not in different ways. Lots of our ancestors actually didn't think a whole lot about having Children, those just showed up inevitably after sex and people just accepted it like the sky over their heads. Then came contraception, abortion and easy divorce ( steady on , I'm not making a religious argument here anyone, just pointing out the facts ) and suddenly having sex didn't necessarily mean babies and long relationships could end so obviously the birth rates plummeted. I grew up in a country in which contraceptive, abortion and divorce were illegal and babies were everywhere. Now we hay those things and the birthrate is below replacement for some time. You want kids .... Simple ban those things and people will still want sex and kids will follow. Maybe that not what people want but it should at least be mentioned because without it , only the religious will enherit the earth ( and they will prohibit them anyway when they are the majority ) just saying 🤔...

[@mooode841]

So you think muslims follow the taliban?😂 I don't know what you were drinking when you wrote that last line. Nice yapping

[@AmericanAdvancement]

I think that will happen once the religious take over since they’re the only ones having children right now. As time marches on you will see a rightward shift in national politics as secular voters will be increasingly outnumbered by religious voters. This process is taking place in Israel and is beginning in the United States

[@spasik_m]

The problem is that people will still be smart enough to abandon religions :))

[@adventureinallthings]

@mooode841 no I said "those that follow the Taliban " I never mentioned Muslim, but the inference s that some Muslims obviously do follow them. I'm careful with what I say

[@adventureinallthings]

@spasik_m not really , it just means those that do will become a smaller and smaller part of the remaining population. The data is in, most people from such communities don't leave ( some do but a minority ) and they are becoming a larger part of humanity ever year

[@DennisRevy]

We are planning to colonize Mars, yet on Earth alone we are already understaffed and underpopulated.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

Let the world become emptier and quieter. That sounds wonderful.

[@santiagomendozaariza2790]

finally someone with sense.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

@@santiagomendozaariza2790 Thank you. I was bracing myself for a lot of pushback.

[@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986]

I actually want to move to a country that is depopulating for this exact reason. I’m tired of there always being massive traffic and pollution, long waiting times in hospitals and huge class sizes for kids in school. I want open space, clean air and small classes with better education for each child. All that is gained from a smaller population

[@spasik_m]

Agree!

[@Cos_Why_Not]

That Walnut Fund is almost certainly a scam. Promising 20% a year. Yeah, good luck with that.

[@GnosticAtheist]

Hopefully not. Way to many people on the road.

[@everything373-z3b]

There is a popullation collapse.

[@erwanmarie8756]

Religiosity is supposed to be conducive to fertility, meanwhile the most religious country in Europe, Poland, has the lowest fertility rate, while the least religious country of Europe, France, is doing much better...I simply don't get it...

[@Afrologist]

It's not the ethnic French that are having kids bro.

[@redshanks2438]

Immigration. I'm neither pro or anti. But the reason for this is immigration.

[@erwanmarie8756]

@@redshanks2438 I do not think it is the sole factor, and it doesn't explain Poland...

[@R3L4X97]

France has better social policies that are conductive to starting a family and not worry about sacrificing a lot of personal funds/ prospects in your career. Especially for women. Poland tried to pay a lump sum for every kid but it was simply not enough to make up for all the other factors involved when raising a child. Israel seems to be doing the best when it comes to a developed nation. Even among the non religious the fertility rate is at 3 per woman. It comes down to social policies there too

[@erwanmarie8756]

@@R3L4X97 Yes, that sounds more like the beginning of an explanation.

[@Tmb1112]

There's no need. At all. AT ALL. There's no issue with overpopulation. And there's no issue with population collapse. I say this as one of the very few people in the US who actually got a degree in Demography (there's only 2 master's programs in the whole nation, and I was the only person taking it in my year, usually there are 3-5 per class). Population rises and falls. Automation replaces some jobs, other jobs are created. Economic growth will slow, but that doesn't mean quality of life will decrease. It doesn't mean that happiness index scores will go down. Population collapse is a silly term. Because the population is not actually collapsing. It's moving, migrating, shrinking, but the society continues to function even as people are lost. In 5-10 years, tens of millions of jobs will be replaced by AI. 10 years after that, maybe 100 million jobs gone. This isn't some far-fetched idea, it's the natural progression of things. It's how things have been going for decades. It's how they'll continue to go. And some sort of social programs will have to emerge to better support a growing chunk of the population who don't work... but those programs won't have to be created as quickly as they would have had to be, if the population was still growing at a fast rate. We have a lot of incoming problems that a shrinking population actually helps with. Of course, there are negatives that come with it as well, but this idea that we need to stop population collapse is silly. We don't know where the sustainable level is for human population. All we've done is grow for all of human history. We're finally nearing a point of shrinking, and it'll probably drop to a point before bouncing back up and then stabilizing around a number like... 9 or 10 billion. Having that many more people than that would be a huge issue. We already are lacking in housing. And without the need to live in cities (because with online work, there's no real need for everyone to have to live in cities anymore), people will spread out to own more land, which means there'll be even less land to go around. Even if we tamed all the land on Earth and made the Antarctic and Sahara habitable, the world wouldn't be comfortable and nice for most people on it if we got up to 15-20billion. Of course we could go colonize Mars and the various moons of our solar system, or create ocean cities or space station colonies to keep expanding, and that would be cool too. But just cool. Not imperative. Not vital to our survival. A stable population that fixes a bunch of the world's problems like hunger, illiteracy, war, etc., is more important in the short term than making sure that our population continues to skyrocket.

[@Elemblue2]

Your overlooking that the energy systems most people are subjected too are designed like company towns used to be designed. They will only ever be given enough to survive, but not enough to escape. The population rise and fall will not affect that deliberate trap, and so the population will just continue to collapse in reaction to what seem to be overstressed conditions that are actually artificial. We are in a new age that has different more terrifying pressures than have ever existed. Globalization is a new phenomenon that has not existed in previous models, and instantaneous gathering and processing of global information changes a great deal. Hunger and illiteracy is by design at the point (Not total design, but its easier for bad actors to take away than good actors to create). Ive studied the economic model for how farming works. Im not saying its entirely by malicious design, I just mean the pressures its subject to are complex and more food could be made its just not being made because of those pressures. (however at this moment there is a corporate takeover of farmland happening that will make it a malicious design in about a decade). Education is being deliberately deprived from the populations in first world countries as a form of voting control. These problems will never be fixed. They are political ones, not progress ones. I personally agree with the god king emperor: "Technology is a constant race between progress and disaster. Education helps but its never enough. *You must also run.* "

[@everything373-z3b]

There is.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Ah demographics... cute. But obv you dont know anything about the econmics of it. You just babble. It's wishful thinking. I can make you an endless list with economic issues of population collapse (called that, accurately, because of the precipitous fall over a short period, say until 2100, you should know that). Whats going to happen is something akin to what we already see in Japan and to a lesser degree in Southern European nations. Large and growing debts, slowing consumption, stagnating wages, eventually deflation, asset price collapse and all sorts of 2nd order effects, but what is essentially a slow but persistent impoverishment of both states and working individuals which is further aggravating the circumstances that led to the issue in the first place. If you think this will magically pass you're deluded. While it may not matter much in the grand scheme of things I guarantee you that the rest of your life will be dominated by this issue.

[@pistolen87]

There's no objective correct answer to the question, which you make it sound like, backed by your demography degree. Humble yourself.

[@thedamnedatheist]

And the most important phrase was "if nothing changes"..... The population doomsayers remind me of Malthus & Ehrlich, and appear to have learned nothing from them about making grandiose predictions of future catastrophes.

[@globaltheater9343]

There is but, *certain people arent going to like it.*

[@tomstarwalker]

Feminists. 😂

[@allo-other]

0:59 "is this a new challenge that men can rise to?" Er .............................................................. men would probably be willing.

[@andrew9371]

If men stayed in charge this wouldn't be happening at all this is all a result of "equality"

[@nublex]

amazing report! one of your best ones so far :) thank you.

[@nathanspreitzer6738]

The problem is far more cultural than economic

[@Minato1337]

This is the right take. Economic incentives do actually help, but not enough on their own. There is a lot of things that need to work together, but most importantly is the cultural institutions.

[@4mb127]

If you're actually interested in the topic KaiserBauch is a great channel to add.

[@ichifish]

It's commonly said that "hunter-gatherers died out because of starvation or disease." This is incorrect, however. The evidence of hunter-gatherer groups dying out says that "other groups destroy them, through warfare or diseases created and spread by agriculturists." We see this repeatedly in human history. There are very, very few actual "hunter-gatherer" groups in the pop culture concept of the term, as misfit bands of Amazonians half mumming it up for the camera. The evidence shows that many groups practiced sustainable farming, with evidence of farming or human-aquaculture sites lasting for thousands of years. As for hunting, Most North American tribes engineered the environment to attract prey. They didn't hunt beaver, for example, because beaver dams create environments that attract deer and moose. If they were starving, they would have killed the beavers.

[@valbonkapaza5103]

I find it strange that feminism was not evoked.

[@julianskinner3697]

Why?

[@Vandelberger]

@@julianskinner3697Educated women have less children and many choose not too anyway.

[@unematrix]

Countries without feminism also have lower fertility rates. Feminism is a consequence of being rich enough to advocate for the rights of women. But is not the reason humans have fewer children... at most, women are more selective of their partners.

[@ChristianDoretti]

@@unematrix That's not true, countries without feminism are mostly religious countries who double the birth rate and are the reason for the current and future population growth.

[@gamer228r]

There's an imbalance, not overpopulation like some think. Europe and America do not have enough people, China and India have too many.

[@Mooardiii]

China does not have too many, their infrastructure could easily fit like 200 million more.

[@gamer228r]

@Mooardiii Infrastructure is not what I'm talking about

[@Mooardiii]

@@gamer228r then what is?

[@doodlePimp]

These ideas will not work. In nations where there is equal pay and equal access to education they see no change in their fertility rate. It is the lack of traditional family values which is the cause for the low fertility rates. In the Scandinavian nations two children per woman is considered a lot and there women often wait until they are 30 to even consider having children. It turns out that when people are free to make their own decisions they just do not want a lot of kids. - Solution: Societies need to start valuing females' social status by the number of kids they have. Do that and a lot of women will become very motivated to having a lot of kids.

[@CarlosSpicyWang]

Feminism has caused this.

[@QuantumAscension1]

Well, there's also a pragmatic function of having children too. Back in the day, when most people were farmers, children were relatively "free labor" compared to the expense of hiring farm-hands. And child mortality was much higher too, so you tended to have a lot of them. Also no much entertainment to keep people occupied, so sex was one of the few "fun" activities to do with free time, and there's virtually no form of contraceptives, aside from the ol' pull-out method. With industrialization, people working/living in cities and sub-urban locations, the expenses of children quickly outweighed the productivity benefits, so people had less of them.

[@metametodo]

38:41 "But these are the facts" I really like this channel, and I will continue to. But geez, this was a blunder, you can't just drop some new bold claim and not support it with arguments and data. Should at the very least elaborate with the book's data.

[@tonipwneroni9846]

This is not a selection pressure for humans or civilization. It's a selection pressure for capitalism. If anything, it makes it easier to meet resource scarcity and sustainability.

[@filippos13]

The world's population was unnaturaly high. It makes sense it will start dropping.

[@everything373-z3b]

And then it will collapse.

[@filippos13]

@ I don’t see why it would

[@everything373-z3b]

@@filippos13 You don't need a why, you will live enough to see it.

[@BourgeoisBoys]

@@everything373-z3b There will be no collapse... people don't just die all at once, stop the sensationalisation! The population decline will usher in a new era of sustainable economic reformation (utopia).

[@petersuvara]

A good example is Bulgaria, which in the last 10 years has lost nearly 20% of its population due to emigration.

[@hurrdurrmurrgurr]

In pre-modern times if a young man or woman wanted to have fun they were forced to leave their homes, go to gatherings, socialise and intermingle. Now people spend their lives entertained alone in their homes and even on their work breaks they stare at their phones with little conversation. Electronic entertainment and by extension the internet are a massive contraceptive, all other social and medical changes are secondary to the reality that conception can't happen when people aren't going outside.

[@jjoei1345]

Well done. I love your unbiased Information

[@GerbenWulff]

We have to stop subsidizing higher education for women and stop forcing people to save for pensions. In many countries, children are expected to take care of their parents when they become too old to work. So couples have a choice: use their money to raise children, or set it aside to save for their pension.

[@Cortesevasive]

with current AI and things like youtube, the higher education is obsolete, it costs nothing to have it.

[@iuliandordea]

Your videos are absolutely amazing !

[@JamesR-f9l]

US population =330,000,000 1 child per person. -1/2x growth per generation. Gen 0: 330,000,000 Gen 1: 165,000,000 Gen 2: 82,500,000 Gen3: 41,025,000 Gen 4: 20, 625,000 Gen 5: 10,312,500 Gen 6; 5, 156, 250 Gen 7 2,578,125 Gen 8 1, 289,063 Gen 9: 644, 531 Gen 10 322,265

[@julianskinner3697]

250 years is 10 generations No projection is likely to apply over that length of time

[@HumanBeing-vj6nx]

Thank you for mentioning HYPERGAMY

[@scottt5521]

In the US, the fertility rate for women who attended church weekly is 2.1 children per woman. If church attendance was irregular then it was 1.85 per woman. This data was collected from 70,000 women that were monitored from 1982-2019 and was stable during that period. The share of reproductive-age women who attended church weekly is 18-24 percent, depending on the survey. Conservative nondenominational communities in the US are expected to double in size over the next generation due to birth rate - out leakage + conversion. Orthodox Jews have a high enough fertility rate to stabilize the Jewish population. among Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and the “Other” category containing groups like Mormons, Unitarians, Messianic Judaism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, Needed TFR (Total Fertility Rate) always exceeds Actual TFR. The Amish and Mennonite populations in the US numbers more than 460,000 and is growing at around 3.7% per year due to large family size (7 children on average) and a church-member retention rate of approximately 80%. Also note that rural America has a TFR of 1.95 (2017). Urban areas are the killer of TFR in every country: 56% of the world's population live in urban areas. By 2050 over 65% will live in urban areas. After the world's cities and mega cities implode with the overall aging and declining population, humanity will be saved from total collapse by small cities, towns, villages, and rural religious communities.

[@nekomakhea9440]

Population growth stopping is only a problem if you're ideologically partisan about maintaining a welfare state Ponzi scheme requiring infinite economic, population, and bureaucratic growth. Whereas Peter Turchin's work and The Great Wave by David Hackett points out that golden ages like the High Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Victorian ages were always periods of low population growth because low population growth ensured high real wages and low inflation and high property ownership due to not having to compete with infinity migrants for jobs and resources, which led to widespread prosperity, and eras of intense war and instability always follow baby booms causing high inflation and overcompetition for resources.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

That's the only hope...

[@jgw9990]

There's no historical evidence of any country coming back from major population decline. An absence of young people will be terrible across all areas. Especially in democracy where the elderly will outvote the young consistently.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

@jgw9990 there's ample evidence for that throughout history. The most significant perhaps being the black plague in europe that killed approximately one third of the population. But there's plenty more... The economic aspects however are real (as are voting patterns ofc). Thats going to be a major problem.

[@4mb127]

It will be a funny democracy where the old will continue to vote pensions for themselves funded by the work of the young. Funny in a way, that it will not continue to exist.

[@thomassecurename3152]

Best report I have come to find. Thanks. 👍

[@AxelNorenburger]

Korea's proposed $70k per child is starting to sound like an actual incentive. I have to laugh at a "$5000 child tax credit" as proposed in the US (currently $2000). That barely helps. Previous generations were more incentivized to have children as a form of support on a farm and old age. Nowadays it's mainly a cost to the parent. The production of children can so easily be incentivized by large child tax credits. Daycares in many areas can reach up to $1-2k per month already, so the measly tax credit covers a single month. It's ridiculously little.

[@krasavchik8714]

$70K for some can be an incentive. However not for a lot of people. Also it is not sustainable for Korea or any other country with such a low birth rate. In 2023 there were only 230k children born in S. Korea. Which is ridiculous for a 50+ million people country. If they really want to sustain population they would need 650K children per year at a bare minimum. Thus if you multiply that number by $70k per child. That is nearly $50 billion per year. Also keep in mind that $70k would not motivate a lot of people to have kids. Maybe $250k will motivate enough people to have 400k children per year. Which is still not enough to sustain population. However at this point even rich nation like Korea cant afford these kind of investments. There is nothing that can be done about population collapse. Lets be real for once.

[@stephanbennett2242]

Great work. Thanks

[@skatemo100]

A redistribution of wealth from top down is the only way to prevent a population collapse.

[@Lucas_Antar]

Imagine living in a technologically advanced world with way less people and possibly less population due to have less people. Should be been born in 2050

[@alejandroavendano7988]

Wild donkeys, horses and cows do not longer exist in Europe, also wolves and bears are almost gone, that place is already overpopulated, what seems to be the problem with fewer people there

[@MarcosElMalo2]

A question just occurred to me. Actually two questions. Why didn’t the Neolithic age happen sooner? Did it not develop until there were population pressures on hunter-gatherer resources? It’s unlikely that we will ever answer these questions. I guess the first step to understanding would be investigating Mesolithic population densities and resource densities.

[@mikexstad1121]

This is only a problem for neoliberal capitalism

[@DavidWootton-yd5ws]

Yes there is!!! Give all of our excess, low quality land to families at a low cost so that they can build or have built their own homes which are large enough for a family - I suggest 1000 ft sq - the size of wartime housing. Our houses are way too big and cost too much. This only keep developers and municipalities happy. There is soooo much substandard land in North America that should be real cheap! Reign in these severance laws. In addition, we must have governments for the people which force businesses and government out of cities over one million to much smaller cities which are cheaper for the people to commute to or live in! Also, we must have governments that make it illegal for corporations to buy up any human accommodation from trailer parks to condos.

[@linenb5o]

Do remember that 2030 is the first year that the average human male will be at best ,subfertile. This is according to scientists researching human fertility. The lack of interest reminds me of the response to the idea of climate change.First societal infertility, then biological infertility. What could go wrong?

[@smallpeople172]

I think people think it’s an issue, when it really isn’t. I have no clue why it’s being fear Mongered

[@sjoormen1]

Wasn't only few years ago population number presented as much to large?

[@brokenrecord3095]

If the population is dropping, seems rather odd that the cost of housing is skyrocketing. One would think that all of those houses (which, it turns out, you can't take with you after all) are now emptying out as the homeowners downsize off this mortal coil. Why is the price not dropping?

[@diegonatan6301]

Depopulation start in the interior and in fact pushes people to the populated zones.

[@gabesteinberg6244]

Mass immigration is the obvious answer.

[@fluffycolt5608]

45:00 the contrast between reasons to have a child nowadays vs in the before times is such a superb point it's amazing how many articles on the birth rate collapse don't mention this. You have a child at great personal cost and the economic value of that child is largely owned by the state, he/she can look forward to a lifetime of deteriorating dependancy ratios. This is such a superb point. Great piece.

[@everything373-z3b]

Nop, some people will not have kids even if you fix all their problems, and others will have despite everything against them.

[@fitterextraordinaire3723]

The renaissance was born in the void left by the Black Plague

[@Cortesevasive]

nah it was because the climate warmed up after the little ice age during medieval times.

[@jordibt1789]

Unironically, affordable housing,

[@everything373-z3b]

People will have kids even without that, and others won't despite having everything.

[@therustler30]

@@everything373-z3b People will do all sorts of things, but factors influence it happening more or less frequent.

[@ScarletKnightmare]

Best way to make housing affordable is to end overbearing zoning regulations

[@therustler30]

@@ScarletKnightmare Yes but this would hurt the insanely overpriced housing values of the main voter block, that being the people between 40-70, so it won't happen. At least not until the issue becomes a lot worse.

[@peterpienczuk2664]

I'm always bemused when this is shown as some kind of existential threat. im surprised there wasn't ominous music playing in the background

[@sorakibr]

25% reduction on taxes per kid...done

[@Yora21]

Using the giant profits of post-industrial economies to create affordable housing and free child care and education would go a long way to make having children more attractive. Until then, this situation and development is one that the governments have chosen to continue.

[@Omer1996E.C]

My dad had 7 children, I pray for 8.

[@petterbirgersson4489]

Why? It's a hassle to take care of just three. You're a taking on a life-long commitment.

[@The88Cheat]

Prayer isn’t how babies are made.

[@Omer1996E.C]

@@The88Cheat what then? Kegels??

[@NilfgardianNationalist]

Commitment?!?! OH NO​@@petterbirgersson4489

[@The88Cheat]

@@Omer1996E.C Storks, duh.

[@Hannodb1961]

I think we have this is all hype based on the fallacious idea that current trends will continue indefinitely. Just a few decades ago, we assumed that population growth will go on forever, and that it would cause a massive problem. However, market forces made having children more expensive, causing a reduction in child births. So too, I believe as the human population shrinks, it will make housing and other critical resources cheaper, and in turn, it will become more affordable to have children again. Simple economics, if nothing else, will regulate the human population.

[@lenastle8764]

Yep remove passive, inane entertainment. Poor people had plenty of kids before tv, recreational shopping, internet, streaming, world-wide recreational tourism, etc etc. Nothing else will work so an EMP from the sun is probably our only hope.

[@muhamadstahlberg]

absolutely 8 wars in europe have devastated rate of growth of population in past times , so basically still we see the worst consequences of these and those fanatic and brutal wars in europe , so basically if you ask about why decline of population in europe has affected everyone in everywhere by everything around world and universe , so basically i will show you the truth and reality , absolutely these and those 8 wars have destroyed many things in europe , one of them is rate of growth of population , which many men , women and children have been killed and massacred by many superpower countries of that time in europe , so basically i will count the wars you my dear european ladies and gentlemen , my dear european brothers and sisters , my dear european friends and comrades , this is list is so important and impactful to you , here is the list : - 1- thirty years war (( 23 / may / 1618 ce - 24 / october / 1648 ce )) . 2- seven years war (( 17 / may / 1756 ce - 10 / february / 1763 ce )) . 3- napoleonic wars (( 18 / may / 1803 ce - 20 / november / 1815 ce )) . 4- world war 1 (( 28 / july / 1914 ce - 11 / november / 1918 ce )) . 5- world war 2 (( 1 / september / 1939 ce - 2 / september / 1945 ce )) . 6- cold war (( 12 / march / 1947 ce - 26 / december / 1991 ce )) . 7- yugoslav wars (( 1 / march / 1991 ce - 13 / august / 2001 ce )) . 8- russo ukrainian war (( 27 / february / 2014 ce - present )) . absolutely it’s the main reason why decline of population is problem and issue at same time , millions of humans from both genders have been killed and massacred by many superpowers of that time which has caused decline of population in europe , so basically it’s the main reason why decline of population happens in europe , it’s because of war , if europe has launched peace instead of war , maybe we would see rate of growth of population at that time and europe would be the most populated continent on this earth and sky , while now europe has decline of population as problem and issue , so basically it’s the main reason why decline of population has affected europe and europeans so much around world and universe , thank you very much , i appreciate you to upload that video , long live peace for europe , glory to peace for europe , victory to peace for europe , salute to peace for europe .

[@AminAzimi-l2e]

Iranian population decline is crazy the main reason is change of culture from religious one to secular one, it’s crazy how secularization caused by Islamic regime happened also 4 decades lf high inflation and economical decline destroyed Iranians population

[@M0PDPRK]

No.

[@bodaciouschad]

There are scholarships and programs for securing internships for young women that don't exist for young men. Less debt increases graduation rates, internships increase hirability and kickstart careers. Women prefer men more successful than themselves, but are by the numbers more likely to be better off. Shockingly, this has coincided with a collapse in the rate at which marridges are formed. The average age of those having their first marridge in the US has risen by 8 years since 1950 (US Census Bureau) marridge rates (i.e. the odds of an unmarried 15+ year old to marry. Idk why the census used 15+ as the age threshold either.) have declined from 8% to 3% in the same time.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

You should Google the term "delayed adulthood". Thats what you're talking about.

[@unematrix]

this is inaccurate: internships for women exist because women found it harder to get one, while men did not. Women also don't prefer men more successful than themselves. It's mostly men who want women who are less successful due to social pressure to be a caretaker and 'manly'. Marriage also isn't relevant to having children as you can have a long-term stable relationship without marriage. So none of this is really relevant to the discussion of population.

[@Minato1337]

Tldr: Economic incentives do help, but in the end it boils down to culture.

[@Minato1337]

perhaps uncomfortable for some of you, but this means religion.

[@bakabuk454]

At least this will be the final nail in the coffin of European exploitative pension and welfare system. And if not I hope all young people will run away to countries that won't exploit them as much as our pensioners.

[@ikeu6433]

This is such a fictional issue. The US has had this problem before. It’s called immigration, it has always worked every time 😂

[@Ftw111-d6k]

Not only Israel is an exception, also Kazakhstan

[@maxhart8814]

Cool music!

[@edwardhamm5535]

This depopulation event always occurs as society industrializes. We can survive with fewer people that can reach the planets carrying capacity while raising productivity with artificial intelligence assisting the aging population. It could be a win-win, protecting the natural habitats while supporting a high quality of life.

[@gwky]

I think worldwide there just are too many people and too few opportunities to go around for simple honest work to sustain us. Now, you need exceptionally skilled work to live "well" and not a lot of the population is capable of it, not are there as many skilled jobs relative to more basic labor. So, really, you can blame politics, the economy, the society, or even the divine - you're probably right either way.

[@kodakomp]

Easy fix. pay parents a fixed payment per month per child they have for the first 16yrs. If having kids helps the economy then look at it as a full time job to raise good kids by paying parents. especially stay at homes for their work to support the production of a workforce. We already do it for people who adopt kids.

[@Cortesevasive]

no thanks, we have enough migrants who breed like rabbits and produce george floyds

[@tages_matuna]

Nature will not miss us 😉

[@crabLT]

If it gets real bad, there is always force, so I doubt we will go extinct. But there are numerous problems that need to be solved.

[@TheBoesie666]

For the current working-age generation and the coming generation will have it the worst. When this generation has their first child there more often in their 30ties. When their parents will retire the are also starting with kids. So the working age Generation will have to take care of two dependent generations.

[@robertjustinoff845]

The way out of population collapse is to invest in life extension technologies, robots for the work place and more A.I. at work.

[@magouliana32]

Yes it sounds paradoxical but it is war and struggle

[@MultiCappie]

I am not convinced the Earth needs more humans.

[@Mandanara]

the channel has been buried by the algorithm.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

Why are people commenting on population size when the real metric is the economy. Yeah humanity will be fine but you can forget about economic growth. A shrinking working population will have to support a growing retirement popukation. There is no way thats happening. No way. And itll absolutely suck for us working age adults. Because they woll try to extract the last drop of sweat and blood from you.

[@simonpetrikov3992]

That can cause a black market to form if taxes are too high

[@Chuck_Hooks]

AI robots will make the existence of humans superfluous.

[@wowjack8944]

Reddit logic.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@wowjack8944 AI girlfriends are just a passing fancy, right?

[@everything373-z3b]

Yeah, maybe in two hundreds years, the problem is now.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@everything373-z3b More like ten years

[@gleitsonSalles]

​@@Chuck_Hooksno one believes in it.

[@ohenrico17acr92]

Justifying my choice to use my passport

[@popot.2847]

Time to spread my seed

[@ScarletKnightmare]

Only by abandoning luxuries and embracing productivity can populations grow

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

We're plenty productive. But the overlords decided to pay out the gains as dividends instead of higher wages so here we are...

[@ScarletKnightmare]

@mysterioanonymous3206 the price of labor is set by supply and demand. We've been flooding our market with a large supply of imported labor which suppresses wages.

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

@@ScarletKnightmare I agree. But that doesn't change the fact that productivity has risen far more than wages. That's the real disconnect. How many people are employed doesn't really play into the productivity equation since labour quantity isnt the deciding factor - quality is. That's where productivity comes from. And all the gains from increased productivity has been pocketed by the owners.

[@ScarletKnightmare]

@@mysterioanonymous3206 yes, technological deflation of wages is a real thing. In our increasingly financialized economy, labor should be invested in equity markets to reclaim some of that profit capture to compensate for the lagging wage. But my insistence that productivity is necessary is more on the individual level. Women are not going to marry and reproduce with unambitious slothful men who seek handouts (with welfare queens being the exception, and that's not who we need more of.) Just one man's opinion.

[@HistoricalWeapons]

Ww3 then it will boom