[LatteLazy]

Investment only cares about the total growth in a market, and investment is a big chunk of the economy.

If I know I'll be selling 20% less widgets in 5 years as population falls, I wont upgrade my widget making machines. Suddenly the people making widget making machines are all unemployed. They stop buying widgets and my sales fall even further. That's ok when it happens in one sector but what about when it happens in every sector?

There are other examples: researching a cure for a disease might make sense if there are 100,000 sufferers but not 20,000. If x% of the economy is used for scientific research, you can afford a lot more LHCs with 500m people than 50m.

Growth has to fall as we have to cut population or nature will do on it for us. But it will be a difficult project with strange political outcomes.

[fauigerzigerk]

>Suddenly the people making widget making machines are all unemployed

More likely they are going to retire before they are unemployed. Working age population always declines earlier than population as a whole.

I think it's pretty clear that there is a rate of population decline that is consistent with rising living standards as long as the decline is ultimately limited.

We should indeed focus far more on productivity. If the number of sufferers from a disease falls to a fifth while research productivity increases five times, finding a cure will make just as much sense as before.

[LatteLazy]

Retirement and unemployment are basically the same in this case. Generally in the US, people do neither, they become disabled. I don't mean they literally suddenly need wheelchairs. I mean that when a large factory in a town closes down, within a year or two, the number of people on disability linked benefits goes up enormously. Then they die "deaths of dispair", suicides, opioid over dose etc. I know this sounds pretty fucking dramatic, but go look it up. Plus you get the likes of Trump elected...

Im all for productivity, but we are very very bad at making sure productivity growth doesn't mean shrinking incomes for the majority. So be careful welcoming the closure of the widget machine factory (or it getting more efficient and laying people off).

There is a rate of population decline that's consistent with economic growth. But its very small.

Three things generally grow economies: pop growth, productivity improvement and technological advance. If your pop growth is negative, you need the others to be big positives. Except that productivity growth is hard to achieve, hard to measure, and (as above) needs a lot of political management to achieve without leading to serious social issues. So you're reliant on technology. And technology isn't really moving much at the moment.

Japan and China have both suffered these combined effects for a while. Falling, aging populations. China has been fine because they can increase both the technological and productivity levels of its economy. It can move from doing things manually to semi automation (now basically done) and it can move from doing low productivity work (putting things together) to making entirely new products. Japan can do either.

Thats why China has managed huge growth (maybe not as good as they like to claim but still) over the last 30 years. And Japan has basically languished.

We are turning into Japan, not China.

[fauigerzigerk]

>There is a rate of population decline that's consistent with economic growth. But its very small.

I didn't say economic growth. I said living standards. The important difference is that living standards can go up while GDP is falling.

>We are turning into Japan, not China.

Japan proves my point. The country isn't exactly impoverished, nor is it getting any poorer. They have very low unemployment and GDP per capita has grown about 10% between 2010 and 2018. That's compared to 12.5% for the US. Not a bad outcome in spite of a steep decline in population.

[Retric]

20% population decline in 5 years is a horrific situation, but machines have a finite lifespan so you still need to make widget making machines. A more realistic +/- 0.5% per year is all of a 5% difference over 5 years and hardly changes projections.

[johnchristopher]

> If I know I'll be selling 20% less widgets in 5 years as population falls, I wont upgrade my widget making machines. Suddenly the people making widget making machines are all unemployed.

Isn't it time to switch to plugin making machines then ? Setup a market opportunities study to try and see how to recycle skills, know-hows and professional network?

[LatteLazy]

Maybe at a local level. But not at a national one. If you lose your job, you improve you're lot by finding another one. If you're town has 100 workers but only 80 jobs, no amount of job fairs and networking will change the fact 20 people will be unemployed.

That's sort of the issue here: too many people, not enough jobs. And an economic/political system that assumes getting a job is possible for everyone.

[ralala]

A single dollar is always worth a specific part of what can be bought. If there is less to buy, the single dollar is worth less. If there are more dollars, the single dollar is worth less. The amount of investment in LHCs might drop absolutely, but why should it relatively?

[neilwilson]

There isn’t a fixed amount of dollars. We have banks remember. Money grows and shrinks to meet the need of changing activity levels