Sure, but not enough. Would it be the worst thing in the world if people could continue the human race without working 120 hours a week? Nope! But it might not be enough to get 2.1.
It’s only a problem in the first place because of the unrealistic expectations capitalists have regarding economic growth.
The more sparse the labour force, the more expensive labour will be.
Therefore, could it not be beneficial for existing members of the labour force if the labour supply were to shrink? Obviously there are other moving parts like some jobs being replaced by LLMs (which are proving to be just as if not more expensive anyway).
My point is that the birth rate isn’t actually that important to the average person (ie. Employees, not employers), capitalists would really like us to believe it is, though.
Sure, but not enough. Would it be the worst thing in the world if people could continue the human race without working 120 hours a week? Nope! But it might not be enough to get 2.1.
It might not, but it might, but it also doesn’t matter because the birth rate is only important to capitalism
And everyone that lives under capitalism?
It’s only a problem in the first place because of the unrealistic expectations capitalists have regarding economic growth.
The more sparse the labour force, the more expensive labour will be.
Therefore, could it not be beneficial for existing members of the labour force if the labour supply were to shrink? Obviously there are other moving parts like some jobs being replaced by LLMs (which are proving to be just as if not more expensive anyway).
My point is that the birth rate isn’t actually that important to the average person (ie. Employees, not employers), capitalists would really like us to believe it is, though.
Why would it matter to anyone that doesn’t live under capitalism?
Oh, well, in that case, have at it. I just don’t know anyone that doesn’t personally.
Women having fewer babies isn’t an issue in my opinion, that’s all