• FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Not really anything to do with capitalism. If the ratio of workers to non-workers decreases without a proportionate increase in productivity, a higher proportion of workers’ time has to be spent catering to the needs of non-workers. That means less time spent not working and/or less time spent producing unnecessary stuff that improves our lives like chocolate or TV shows.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      We grow several times more food than humanity can possibly eat. We don’t have a productivity or resource shortage. We have an allocation error.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      Not really anything to do with capitalism. If

      You think for-profit healthcare, including elder care, pharma care, and long-term care, aren’t a huge problem with capitalism written all over it, with every layer maximizing profits and minimizing services, then I I urge you to re-assess it.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Except for population to grow it requires children which also don’t work, require more resources than elderly, and at the end of 20 years instead of freeing up resources (by dying like the elderly), continue to consume resources.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        At the end of 20 years a child becomes an adult, who will (on average) be a net producer. It’s true that children cost more in work put into raising them than older adults take in work to look after them, yet it is a fact of life that one working human is capable of producing more stuff than just that which they themselves needs or makes use of - otherwise it would be impossible to raise children. This should be obvious, and means that the problem of an increasing birth rate, from this perspective, is at most temporary.

        But I didn’t say we should have high birth rates, I said that the problems of low birth rates are not due to capitalism.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 minutes ago

          Land isn’t unlimited. Physical resources aren’t unlimited. For example while a person can manufacture more batteries, with more people on the planet each battery will be more expensive for everyone because each is vying for the same limited resources that are used to make a battery.

          I also wouldn’t say that low birthrate is caused by capitalism but by over population. No economic system can sustain unlimited growth. When too many are competing for too few resources, there is no time for families.