this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
193 points (98.5% liked)

Work Reform

12364 readers
22 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnnaPlusPlus@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago (8 children)

The part I don't understand is why it's important to hit the "replacement level". Wouldn't it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?

[–] seeCseas@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

but then the megacorporations can't hit their iNfInItE gRoWtH and we can't keep making the billionaires richer.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@AnnaPlusPlus

Consider the number of financial instruments that are essentially pyramid schemes built on the assumption of perpetual growth.

[–] MercuryUprising@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Its all of them

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

If there's less people than jobs it's easier to ask for better wages.

[–] drkt@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would be, but the economy was built on perpetual growth schemes.
Don't forget, the economy is here to be served by us, not the other way around!

[–] Sahqon@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The economy will crumble if we don't get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I'm not holding out hope...

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

There's plenty of poor people who've bought into the propaganda and refuse to sign on even if it'd help them.

[–] AttackBunny@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.

But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.

[–] John937@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

Yes, but our whole economy, and maybe even society itself is built on the requirement and assumption of growth.

We steal tomorrow to pay for today.

If we stop having enough people to grow, we will collapse under the requirements of our system until a new non-growth economy/society is formed from the ashes.

I don't think it will be possible to have a smooth transition to a non-growth or low-growth society since very few people will willingly sacrifice the amenities we pay with in debt, which is paid for by predicted growth.

When that predicted growth goes negative, collectively, we will not be able to afford the things we want, and that will cause mass chaos and potentially even resource wars.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Not for capitalism. A lot of our systems were built on the concept of infinite growth.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Actually, you're right, and I think that lowered populations are a good thing. World needs quality people, not just quantity. A world filled with a smaller amount of environmentally conscious and responsible people is better than a world filled with a large amount of meat eating, gas guzzler driving jackasses that spend all their time being racist, while overconsuming everything and yelling and shooting at anyone who even suggests that maybe they should cut down on consumption.