• Greenleaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    A reminder that “low birth rates bad” is false, at least by itself. It’s bad for capitalists (who need constant economic growth) and for welfare systems operating under capitalism. What’s bad is if there’s people who want a family but can’t afford it.

    A declining population under socialism isn’t a problem so long as people are having as many or as little kids as they want.

    • Ericthescruffy [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe I’m wrong but this seems a bit overly reductive? Capitalist or Socialist: if your workforce is aging out and there aren’t people to replace their roles and automation hasn’t got it handled yet that’s probably still an issue you need to address…although I agree socialism is much much better equipped to do so on account of planned economy if nothing else.

      • MovingThrowaway [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah it’s not bad but it is a problem, in the same sense that any social, economic, environmental, whatever change is a problem that needs to be adapted to. Planned proletarian economies are just the ones best suited to meet these problems head on instead of weathering, externalizing, profiting from, or collapsing because of them.