Submitted by SantoshiEspada t3_10omwyu in Futurology
wannabesaddoc t1_j6hg5s2 wrote
Reply to comment by slickbandito69 in Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
Do you really, honestly, believe that 99% of the population will be genocided? Like over 7 billion people?
TheSecretAgenda t1_j6hl1vl wrote
No more like. You get $1000 a month UBI normally. If you are between the ages of 18 and 50 and agree to be sterilized, you get $1,500 a month. You get no additional UBI if you have a child.
Within 100 years the working class will take itself out.
reidlos1624 t1_j6hs7b7 wrote
Population growth drives consumerism in many if not most capitalist societies. We're already seeing the panic as population curves near negative growth.
World_May_Wobble t1_j6ihei4 wrote
I think something like half of annual GDP growth comes population growth, and the rest from gains in productivity. That's not a feature of capitalism, because even the Soviet Union's output benefited from more bodies.
That said, yes. The flattening of population growth hurts economic growth, but that might be mitigated against by removing labor as a bottleneck. Human consumption could stagnate, but there's no reason productivity has to, so the economy could continue to grow.
reidlos1624 t1_j6ijfq3 wrote
If Human consumption stagnates, so does production. Production is determined by consumption, that's why in a supply side economic model we get these stupid boom bust cycles where economic downturn is just expected after a few years of growth. Difference is that a population drop wouldn't be a typical bust cycle and would more than likely break many economic systems.
But I'm not an economist and this is just my understanding of how these systems work.
World_May_Wobble t1_j6inou9 wrote
No, I think you're right about how the economic model works today. If population flat lines, consumption does too, and production follows, both because there's no growth in demand and because there are no new bodies to work.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments