this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
188 points (98.0% liked)

Work Reform

11767 readers
1 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnnaPlusPlus@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

The part I don't understand is why it's important to hit the "replacement level". Wouldn't it be better for the planet if there were fewer people living on it and competing for resources?

[–] seeCseas@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

but then the megacorporations can't hit their iNfInItE gRoWtH and we can't keep making the billionaires richer.

[–] AttackBunny@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Ponzi scheme, that is American “social security” (I mean actual social security, but all the rest of the social services too), would collapse if there arent more poor people pumping money into, than are taking out of it. Instead of doing shit like taxing the fuck out of the rich, or AI/robots.

But, yes, it would solve A LOT of the worlds problems if there were less people.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be fair, I don't think taxing robots will get you far...

[–] AttackBunny@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do you figure. If the workforce becomes by and large robotic, taxing the businesses, based on that, like you would humans, would work well enough. If not, then there needs to be some concession from businesses to pay the same or more as when humans were doing the jobs.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm moreso being cheeky about your wording - robots don't own cash, thus can't pay taxes. You must tax businesses.

[–] AttackBunny@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Fair enough. Lol. I meant the business that own the robots.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

If there's less people than jobs it's easier to ask for better wages.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@AnnaPlusPlus

Consider the number of financial instruments that are essentially pyramid schemes built on the assumption of perpetual growth.

[–] MercuryUprising@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Its all of them

[–] drkt@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It would be, but the economy was built on perpetual growth schemes.
Don't forget, the economy is here to be served by us, not the other way around!

[–] Sahqon@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

The economy will crumble if we don't get to replacement levels at least, but it will also crumble, along with everything else if we do. Only way out of this is to change the whole model before it crumbles. But that would mean the rich need to get (willingly) less rich, so I'm not holding out hope...

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Actually, you're right, and I think that lowered populations are a good thing. World needs quality people, not just quantity. A world filled with a smaller amount of environmentally conscious and responsible people is better than a world filled with a large amount of meat eating, gas guzzler driving jackasses that spend all their time being racist, while overconsuming everything and yelling and shooting at anyone who even suggests that maybe they should cut down on consumption.

[–] hydra@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's true but the largest impact is caused by billionaires who fly even-more-gas-guzzling private jets, hunt and/or eat endangered species, buy gold and jewelry made with blood materials from Africa and use their spending power to influence the world negatively in multiple ways for profit.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago

Not for capitalism. A lot of our systems were built on the concept of infinite growth.