luckily they got videogame references, I can't retain any political knowledge without videogame references peppered liberally throughout
It's ok to be angry about capitalism
- Thread starter XsjadoBlaydette
- Start date
Healthcare, and many other social goods that help people stay alive and be productive, are important in today's society.
Back in 1900, it wasn't so much of a big deal if several offspring died, were maimed or otherwise rendered useless, because families had so many children. However, once a society is around or below replacement rate, people become a more precious resource that can't be so casually wasted. I suspect that's why so many of the economic and political elites want the public to have a lot more babies: it gives them many more options to save money letting them die or getting them killed. Capitalists only love scarcity when they can control it as a means to jack up their prices.
a forced higher working meatsack class population also Has the added bonus of keeping wages pushed down by heightened competition for jobs by more desperate, struggling people. work more for less and be glad or else risk getting replaced by one of the hundred other hungry Johnnies with families to feed and less aspirations towards pesky workers rights
Nintendo hiding its creators.Fuck off Nintendo.
Nintendo Didn’t Price In Trump Tariffs For Switch 2, Justifies $80 ‘Mario Kart World’
Nintendo is talking about how Trump's tariffs may still raise the Switch 2 price, and why Mario Kart World costs $80.www.forbes.com
But a birthrate below 2.1 will cause welfare spending and innovation problems if done on an international scale with no radical life extension. Plus, even if AI and Boston Dynamics-style robots do all of the white-collar and blue-collar labor. You still need to feel the AI data.
society is more than productive enough by now that there is no excuse to think "welfare spending" problems are a thing. you're giving too much to your rich parasites and spending too much on bombs.
Fewer workers per retiree means a lower quality of life, fewer healthcare workers, and fewer people doing research. You can not get around that.
MrBeast fans outraged over three-day Las Vegas 'immersive' event
Some fans complained they had to wait in hotel rooms for hours and only received clearance items from his online store in a "mystery bag" for the event.
All else being equal, yes, but there are plenty of other factors that could be made to change.
fewer people mean fewer people that need needs, humans aren't fucking robot units for your cute lil nuerodivergent math games
I don't know that all this is true.
Firstly, we should probably be careful about how we express this. "Lower quality of life" for instance could be held to mean a decrease in QoL, however in practice it might only be a slower increase in QoL. Fewer healthcare workers and researchers might not mean worse healthcare and research if offset by productivity increases.
At a certain level, fundamentally fewer people means less work means less gets done. We can all acknowledge that. If there is a decrease in workers relative to overall population, obviously there will need to be certain economies made. However, what those economies are is something society can ask itself and decide in policy. We can ask how much money and effort does society piss down the drain on unimportant things. For instance, how much do we waste buying masses of clothes? The old stuff people have is fine, but they are buying a load more just because it's the new season and buying stuff was advertised at them. Do so many people need a new mobile phone every year when they should be fine for 3-4 years? And so on.
I would argue that there is a massive ton of stuff we could cut down on in order to redirect resources to keep the things you're interested in going, with substantially no loss of QoL. It just requires political will.
The less you make of something, the fewer resources you put towards it, and thus the less innovation comes from it. Yes, clothes and phone consumption aren't innovative right now. But, computers have gotten smaller, faster, and even cheaper in some functionalities. That's a consumer good that will decrease in innovation if the population decreases due to fewer personal computers being bought. And funny enough, I just bought an iPhone 16 after 4 years, and it was a pain to bring all my accounts from the 12 to the 16. And the only reason I bought one was because the wifi chip and the screen had problems. As for clothes, we could make more durable clothes, but blame your average upper-income family and their various members for buying clothes 7X like I buy groceries. And even if computers are important for Moore's law development, there are still loony people buying a new computer every year because wackjob gamedevs shop execs make games more demanding for no reason. I am perfectly fine with my 3080 TI, which I upgraded from an 880 laptop, which I used for 8-10 years, but the average consumer isn't like me.
I am just one guy; don't direct your hatred to me, direct it towards your average Republican voter, their officials.
Other factors could make it worse, it Japan, for example, where old people dominate the political scene, there can't be any social reform that could raise the birthrate, increase immigrants, or make working and living in Japan less of a chore for domestic Japanese citizens which would make the economic situation better. Instead, it's endless economic "reforms" like Abenomics and the hope that the US buys more Japanese goods, which are increasingly being outcompeted by Chinese goods.