The world population is expected to start shrinking within this century after hitting a peak in the mid-2080s due to lower fertility levels, particularly in China, according to the latest projection by the United Nations.

  • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you strike and there’s no scabs for them to hire or the scabs are even more expensive (because they aren’t desperate for a job) then it becomes cheaper to actually give the workers what they want.

    It is the opposite of the poor eating the poor. Being educated, having fewer kids later in life makes getting out of the poverty cycle a lot easier for anyone.

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Did you read the comment I responded to saying that the black death was good because a lot people died and as a result created a better labor market? That’s saying death is a good thing to cull surplus labor.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think you’re reading too much into what’s not there. The poster is talking about how less people resulted in the improvement of labor conditions. In the past this has only happened noticeably through large scale death. The black death is probably the most drastic but similar has happened after both WWI and WWII. The difference is that the current labor supply reduction won’t be from death but from reduced births. However, increased power of laborers should at least be similar whether the cause is through death or reduced births. China, Japan, and South Korea are experiencing/are going to experience this first without drastically increased immigration and the rest of the western world isn’t far behind.

        • Copernican@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          At literally every point of modern history, a reduction in the amount of humans was beneficial for the vast amount of humans in the long run.

          Like, even the Black Death led to reduced wealth inequality and the beginnings of workers rights.

          I don’t see how someone can claim that the mass death of people is simultaneously beneficial to that people.

          There’s a difference in reduction of humans by events that cause death at large scale vs decline in rates of reproduction. Clearly catostrophic death is being used as an example of “a reduction in the amount of humans.”

          • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Large scale death events are the only reference we have for the type of population reduction that we are/will be seeing.

            Labor supply being reduced while demand remains means that labor is stronger. Whether that supply reduction is due to death, population decline, or other causes is not really relevant.