• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I just want to notice that most people have been told by the economy in recent years that more people are needed to fulfill all jobs because the economists wanted to increase the supply of workers and therefore push the wages down.

    Recently, economists have started understanding that this (AI) wave of automation/innovation might indeed be the last one, the one that reduces demand for human labor without creating more new jobs as a side-product. As such, the number of workers needed declines. Since economists would favor lower taxes, they try to limit Universal Basic Income to a minimum, but that implies fewer people to pay for. As such, they are taking a “lower fertility rate is better” stance now. We’re gonna see a lot of “news articles telling us that the falling birth rate is a good thing” in the near future. It just takes a significant effort to spread that message in the population.

    • overload@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      I mean, it would be great if the global population was lower, whilst also not creating aging population issues. Automation plus UBI seems a lot better than “everyone kill grandma”. Big issue being that those that own the automation don’t want to pay forUBI.