[jaccola]

I assume we agree that working less produces less (which reasonable people debate) since otherwise competition from abroad wouldn't be an issue.

If that is the case, then adding trade barriers also doesn't fix anything. Adding the trade barriers would ultimately just produce a lower standard of living. You'd essentially have an isolated system and the system is now producing less, so necessarily there will be less for everyone in the system.

Adding trade barriers also doesn't fix the threat of an adversarial country working 50% more than you for the next 50 years and as a result having the infrastructure to dominate you in numerous ways.

[therealpygon]

> I assume we agree that working less produces less

That’s a pretty big assumption. From what perspective, since the “working less” is only the perspective of the worker?

Production is not a zero-sum game that assumes companies make zero effort to invest in more manpower rather than profits.

Profit rates, however, are a significant part of the problem as each US company in the chain attempts to maximize profits they obtain from the next and avoid any competition (often using the legal system for protection). That doesn’t occur in the areas you mention because competition is the name of the game in those countries, which is why they have maximized production and flexibility.

[mariusor]

> I assume we agree that working less produces less

Per capita, let's say yes, though I think there are people that assert that individual productivity is higher when working less hours.

But as a whole, probably not. In aggregate companies will pay more people less money, to do the same amount of work, so I think it should balance itself out.

[jaccola]

There are a finite number of people and unemployment is already low.

[mariusor]

In other words it's possible. :P

[piker]

Doesn't that ignore the possibility of profit motives driving innovation when they're not being undercut by lower standards re externalities?

[matsemann]

Do we need to produce more, though?

[jaccola]

It seems that most peoples of most countries have an unquenchable thirst for more, yes. No one forced the car, the smart phone, the sugary snacks, cheap plastic toys, ... to exist. They exist because people want them.

Maybe certain people think they are made of better clay than the average consumer and should determine what everyone else can buy; that path is a dangerous one...

[matsemann]

> Maybe certain people think..

Maybe certain people shouldn't be so quick to call other people fascists just because they voiced a thought on capitalism's need for infinite growth. Ironically enough, certain people are the thought police here, with a dangerous path...

[adwn]

> Maybe certain people shouldn't be so quick to call other people fascists […]

Nobody did that here, though.

[matsemann]

I didn't claim that anyone did.. If you didn't notice, I just used the same construct as the person above me to throw out accusations with deniability.. But we all know what they meant, and that was a wild take based on my simple question.