|
i disagree with the suppositions put forth
first, population not rising doesnt necessarily equate to anything at all in regards to immigration policies. For example, china i believe has a goal of zero population growth.
second, populations 'value' is unaffected by its own growth. simple reasoning...the more people there are, there more needs there are, therefore more jobs etc, probably is all linearly related.
we push for a workforce population because the more people working, the more stuff there is to go around - whether that be intangible stuff such as service, or tangible such as goods. If less people worked, then we would see less things available. this would probably cause a recession or depression. Note, working doesnt necessarily mean physical labor or even mental labor. For example, if everyone saved your money at home rather than spending it on investment, goods, services etc, then the economy would be affected by a higher inflation rate than if people invested or spent their money.
If you are trying to point out the flaws in a capatalistic system (that there are rich, middle class, and poor), then i think the flaws pointed out are actually merits. The rich got rich at first by working hard, true some people inherit their wealth from their parents - but that simply means that the parents really worked smart or hard. while it may seem to the average working class guy that he is working hard and the CEO is making money doing nothing, it actually isnt the case. those people really do have important jobs, which if they failed at could mean a loss of jobs for all of the lesser payed employees.
also, a smart CEO does not 'pay only what is needed for a productive worker' a smart ceo will know that to keep happy employees who are productive, he must offer financial or emotional rewards good enough to keep them. what that means is, they must be competitive in their wage/salary with regards to anyone else in their business. this competition to keep good labor leads to wages that are fair. after all if the wage was unfair, people would look elsewhere for a job.
upper class growth doesnt necessarily mean the necessary increase in lower class available for physical labor. the middle class for example is as likely to be gaining more jobs as the lower class.
No matter what economic system you are working under, if you take away the resources to produce the goods, then there will be a loss of jobs, and a loss of goods produced. it is only natural that this would spark a recession or depression depending upon how severe the shortage is. The only true way to avoid such a thing is if we somehow move past physical goods as a commodity; which can realy probably only happen if we somehow create a massive cybernetic mind where the population can reside virtually without physical bodies.
of course in such a high tech civilization it would be unlikely to ever run out of needed resources since the resources necessary to maintain such a civilization would no doubt be extremely minimal comparatively to our current resource needs.
|