[brtkdotse]

I feel that people underestimate the impact of this.

The current world economy is built on the assumption that the population pyramid is a pyramid, if there’s a glut in the influx of healthy new citizens a whole slew of supply chains will collapse.

[ido]

On the demand side - but how would automation/AI/robotics impact the supply/production side (i.e. will we replace the unborn would-be new workers with new robots)?

[llamaimperative]

They would impact it by siphoning greater proportions of economic surplus to the owners of said robots, i.e. the wealthy.

[rhelz]

Fortunately, there is no limit to what we want :-)

According to my high-school econ teacher, who defined economics as the art of satisfying our unlimited desires with limited resources.

[nine_zeros]

> The current world economy is built on the assumption that the population pyramid is a pyramid

And this is an economic system problem. The solution to an economic problem is not more people

The solution to an economic problem is revamping the economic system aka more share of wealth going to average people than merely the wealthy sitting on compounding growth.

[rhelz]

Whole slews of supply chains collapse all the time. Just look at some rust-belt factories. Or take a look at some 80's computer magazines, where there are an endless number of software companies selling pascal and lisp compilers, BBS software, etc. Not to mention floppy disc drives and CD-ROM drives.

[llamaimperative]

Do you actually not see the difference between widespread sector-agnostic labor disruption and technologies going obsolete? Wondering if this is an actual misunderstanding or you're just pretending.

[rhelz]

// wondering //

I never argue in bad faith. I am unaware of any data which show that the economic disruptions do to demographic issues is going to be worse than the economic disruptions due to new tech replacing old.

I also am unaware of any actual data which says that the population is going to shrink faster than productivity increases.

[randomdata]

> I feel that people underestimate the impact of this.

Do they? As a non-American just watching in, I got the impression that Trump won on this very issue, promising that "Christian family values" would bring about a reversal. That was certainly the message, when taken at face value (I understand many believe that it is trying to mask other motives), that made it out of the USA, at least. That suggests to me that the concern is there.

I expect most people do understand the impact, but, much like climate change, don't know how to actually bring about the change that is needed without infringing on the life they want to live.

[zifpanachr23]

That's highly debatable. It's one of several issues that I think contributed to his win. And it's unclear to me that he is really very serious about the whole family values thing in particular.

If you were a single issue voter on that particular issue, he was the obvious choice, but I don't think that issue is something on most people's minds or responsible for a significant proportion of single issue voters that could have been swayed to Trump.

Certainly, I think the rabid anti-natalism among the Democratic party is probably more responsible for a shift of any of said voters concerned about demographics than any declared natalist position that Trump advanced. He really hasn't pushed policy any further in that way than would have been considered very normal 10 or 15 years ago. With the sole exception of some states being allowed to implement abortion bans (although the extent to which that is really a natalist policy I think is up for debate, I don't think the majority of pro life voters conceptualize it in that way or expect it to have a measurable demographic effect).

Immigration and inflation and the cultural out of touchness of the opposing candidate all contributed to his win more than explicit fear about declining birth rates. That definitely contributes somewhat to the above fears, but it can't account for them entirely.

I feel qualified to speak on this being from a conservative family and being much more willing to consider Trump than I think the majority of the HackerNews audience is. Also, I'm located in Texas, where my point of view is perhaps somewhere around the median on a left - right axis. I've never once heard birth rates brought up by family or friends as a reason somebody wanted to vote for Trump. That being said, it would make sense if they did, and it's something I'd be interested in, on account of being a little more wonky than most of my family and friends, and thinking it's a serious issue that is still being vastly under discussed.

[randomdata]

> That's highly debatable.

Is it? You seem to stand pretty firm on your position (which is a fair one, for what it is worth).

[barbequeer]

Do you think this is a bad thing?

[Arnt]

A bad estimate is always somehow bad.

The US is in the news now. It has something like five million illegal immigrants that work for next to nothing. Losing that source of cheap labour would be a wrenching change.

[namaria]

I have a hunch that mass deportations have an accelerationist origin. If Heritage Foundation ultimately thinks depopulation and mass automation are tenable and on their way, a supply shock in the labor market could spark some change. Not unlike the Death Plague contributed to the rise of wealthy craftsman and merchant class.

[toomuchtodo]

11 million, and it costs ~$80B to deport every million.

[Arnt]

11… wow… is that everyone or just the ones that work legalish fulltime jobs?

[toomuchtodo]

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-k...

[Arnt]

Eight million in the labour force, that's quite a number.