(no title)
mwbajor | 2 years ago
Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?
mwbajor | 2 years ago
Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family. Even better, incentivize families. Or is that too expensive for bankers?
dukeyukey|2 years ago
All else being equal, more GDP (per person) means more wealth per person. More housing space, more heating, more antibiotics and children's sledges. So yeah, I support more GDP.
> Pay a country's people more so that they have more time/resources to dedicate to making a family
We've tried that; doesn't work. Not much at least. Sweden and France have had a bit of success, but not enough to even get back to sustainable fertility levels, let alone natural population growth.
adriancr|2 years ago
For that to happen, resources need to be reallocated from somewhere else towards this. For that to happen, people would need to express this via voting.
> Why does everyone support wall streets "increase GDP at all costs" immigration platform?
Those resources don't come out of nowhere, so there is a need for immigration as well to get work done.
mwbajor|2 years ago
Efficiency gains in a process certainly create extra "resources" whatever they might be. But I do applaud you for not saying "we need immigration because we need ethnic food" like most people say nowadays.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]