653
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Considering how people struggle with the comparatively small hiccup that is the current Iran-US war, I find it hard to believe that all commenters here would be fine when global trade dwindles.

I however am built different and would simply survive economic and societal collapse.

[-] PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

If society is constantly getting richer every single year and has for decades... Why are people still struggling? Either poor people are unreasonable/irrational, we don't actually care about reducing cost of basic necessities,or the wealth increases are being siphoned out elsewhere.

Population decline would be a non-issue in a functioning economy, because a small shrinkage of the economy would be a non-issue.

[-] Rusty@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 hours ago

Well, the Japan's population is declining and they've been in stagflation for the last 30 years.

[-] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 6 hours ago

Even the fears about the economy and government spending are bullshit. Notice the folks obsessing over birthrates always quote the retiree to worker ratio. They don't talk about the dependent to worker ratio, and that's what really matters. Yes, our populations are aging, and yes that means relatively more old people to take care of. But we in turn also have far fewer children to take care of. If we can adapt to the Baby Boom era, we can adapt to an aging population.

Further afield, fears about human extinction are total bullshit. No country is a monolith; every nation has groups within it with higher and lower relative birth rates. If the birth rate stays low and never recovers among the mainstream society, eventually the smaller groups end up composing most of the population, and then the birth rate recovers. The Amish inherit the Earth.

Or, if even that fails, ultimately technology loss alone stabilizes your birthrates. Eventually your population falls so low that you just can't physically manufacture reliable birth control anymore. That's a product of industrial production. It requires a certain minimum population size to run a factory. Below that and we just regress to earlier technological eras. Eventually we end up back in a mostly agrarian state, and suddenly having kids is once again economically beneficial.

[-] Chick0nPlayz@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

who will work unskilled jobs if there aren't enough people to do them?

Immigrants usually

[-] iocase@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

Also the financial ponzi schemes break all at once pissing off old people who vote in mecha-hitler to enslave everyone under 40 so their house prices and pensions stay high.

I mean, this is a pretty silly response. Is there a hidden population of Martians I'm not aware of, eager to immigrate to Earth to work our low skill jobs?

[-] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Huh? Global population is still growing. (More slowly now, but the slope is still strongly positive.) We haven't hit peak human population yet and won't any time soon. That means if the population of the US declines, we can just import more USians.

We're talking about a global phenomenon here. It's pretty racist to assume that other groups of human beings are somehow fundamentally different from your own. It's pretty xenophobic to believe that the countries with high birth rates will just maintain them forever.

The problem isn't the US running out of workers. The problem is the entire world running out of workers.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

They are fundamentally different; the west is looting their country for resources and cheap labor, they will maintain high birthrates so long as neocolonialism prevents them from developing their own means of production.

Put down the socialist theory and look up actual demographic numbers. You're just wrong.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

Are you suggesting that birthrates don't remain high in the global south?

You're trying to move the goalposts. We're talking about the future and how birth rates are trending. Now you're trying to change the conversation to the present, "Are you suggesting that birthrates don’t remain high in the global south?" Obviously they're higher in some countries, but those rates are collapsing like they are everywhere else. And there isn't a good match between those countries and what is usually described as the global south.

Since you're too lazy, I did your homework for you: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034075/fertility-rate-world-continents-1950-2020/

You can look up more information here: https://www.birthrate.io/fertility

We're talking about the future need for workers, not the present. So please don't try to move the goalposts by asking the obvious question of are birth rates still higher in the SOME PARTS of the global south relative to the north.

But there's a very clear trend here. Every single country undergoes a decline in birth rates as it industrializes. The global south is not an infinite source of labor you can rely on forever.

You need to let go of this myopic North/South, Imperialist/Colonized framework you seem to be trying to shoehorn into every problem. Here are the countries that have above replacement fertility rates (in green):

There's no real connection here between these countries and "the global south." Counties such as India, most of South America, Iran, SE Asia, etc are all below replacement rates.

Here's what fertility rates are currently projected to look like in 2100:

We're on track to have less than a handful of countries around the world with above-replacement fertility rates. The global south doesn't have elevated fertility rates, the specific regions of Subsaharan Africa and Central Asia do. Even Somalia will barely be above the replacement rate.

You're too lost in a surface-level understanding of "theory" (read: socialist memes) that it's clouding your judgment. Within a generation, countries all over the world, including countries in the global south, will be fighting each other to attract immigrants.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

now you know why weve had such a big anti abortion push

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 43 points 13 hours ago

Look what happened after the plague, 50% of the population was gone.

It broke the back of the Catholic church and feudalism. Peasants got their first pay raise... ever.

[-] nullspace@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

I think there's a comic series about that.

[-] NotAnOtter@lemmus.org 13 points 12 hours ago

Lower population is generally better for almost all sectors.

But lowering the population means killing people or restricting birthing rights.

[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

Well, I dunno about you, but I'm in no hurry to get children.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 12 points 10 hours ago

People can also just stop breeding. Seems to be happening in a lot of developed countries. Might be slower but I bet the population will level off eventually. Or plummet dramatically from climate change/right wing political policies.

[-] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 11 points 10 hours ago

Or people just saying "nah"

[-] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago

Well no. That’s a wildly incorrect take.

Birth rates are already decreasing and are below replacement rate in many places already. Fertility rates are at an all time low. They naturally decrease as income and quality of life increases.

The global fertility rate is 2.2 births per woman. Which is just barely above replacement. In most developed nations, that rate is down in the 1.6 range, well below replacement.

Total Human population is excepted to peak within 50 years and then begun naturally declining, but many countries are already there. China has seen several consecutive years of population decline. India is seeing a leveling off of population growth and will soon decline. The US is increasing solely off of immigration. Japan has a decreasing population. Same with Korea. 8 EU countries have seen population declines over the last 20 years.

If you wanted to see population decline in the US specifically, banning immigration would do it and we’d see a decline in the next census.

[-] Damage@feddit.it 8 points 11 hours ago

Population is already lowering in developed nations

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

The same people having the same offspring, but later, would lower the population.

So long as people die like regular you can stuff all those dreadful fantasies. Unfortunately, malice is not required for this number to go down.

[-] daddycool@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Thanos has entered the chat.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Randelung@lemmy.world 39 points 16 hours ago

Houses are already kept artificially empty to retain prices. Capitalism always finds a way to screw you over.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 19 points 14 hours ago

Okay, but retirement is based off there being more people working than not, so in countries with national pensions we'll have to significantly raise taxes, and in countries without such a system, retirees who are invested into index funds, need publicly traded corporations to start underpaying their employees even more (it's really eye-opening when you realize people over 55 own 73% of all the resources of the US, from money to stocks to real estate).

Hogwash. You forgot the other half of the equation. We don't have as many children to support. Notice how people obsessed over birth rate always focus on the retiree:worker ratio rather than the dependent:worker ratio? The problem disappears once you realize we can simply take money that we were spending on childcare and shift it to eldercare.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 10 hours ago

Oh no not rich people having less money.

[-] FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Sounds to me like we'll have to do a communism, i.e banding together to help each other out more, to allow people to retire in comfort. The horror!

(Just in case it seems like I'm dismissing anything you said, I'm not, and thank you for your analysis. My main takeaway is that it seems an unavoidable problem)

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 45 points 17 hours ago

When the population was predicted to explode into the 21st century, the news said this was a big problem. Now the population is expected to gradually decline. The news is saying this is a big problem.

[-] FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 13 hours ago

Both can be a problem

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 19 points 17 hours ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 16 hours ago

increase wages

Hahahaha oh. That's cute.

[-] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 26 points 16 hours ago

If theres a shortage in the labor market, you either fill it with slavery or raise wages.

Americans track record seems to indicate the former waaayyyy before the latter

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
653 points (97.7% liked)

Greentext

8813 readers
1166 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS