• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    So we should be able to get by with less labor, right?…

    Sure. Or everyone could get more stuff for the same amount of labor.

    Suppose your boss told you, “You’ve been doing a great job at work. We could give you 10% raise, or we could keep your paycheck the same and cut your hours by 10%.” I don’t know which you would choose, but most people would take the raise.

    • Tiger
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yes this is what I meant. So when we can “get more stuff for less labor” we should be fine with a lower population, right? We only need one farmer now per hectare, not 10. We only need ten workers to build a car now, not 100, and so on.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Technology is only one part of the equation. If a factory upgrades its machines but loses half its workforce, it could end up producing less than before.

        In Japan, technology improvements are not enough to make up for an aging population. So either workers put in even longer hours or the country has to make do with less stuff than before. And workers are approaching their limits.