Beeindruckend:
Vorher war Meer da.
berufsverbot für den “webdesigner”, wann?
irgendwie wirklich cursed diese Webseite
nicht wirklich… die normalen artikel sehen “okay” aus… aber dieser artikel ist aboslute rotze
Ich finde es bemerkenswert, wie wenige Großstädte in Deutschland gewachsen sind und wenn auch nur wenig.
Na bei den Mieten gut nachvollziehbar
Mieten sind auch Nachfrage abhängig. Wenn es hohe Mieten gibt, sollte eigentlich mehr gebaut werden und dann die Preise fallen, womit dann die Großstädte wachsen. Stattdessen wachsen vor allem die Vororte.
Stimmt, finde ich auch. Auch sonst bemerkenswert; die Wendegeschichte, der Rückgang der Industrie im Pott und die lustigen roten Flächen südlich von München…
Die roten Flecken sind der Perlacher Forst und der Forstenrieder Park. Da haben wohl 1961 64 Menschen drin gewohnt.
Good. We don’t need more people. The capitalist blood machine needs more people, we don’t.
The population in europe is growing, this is about a change in distribution.
Well I’m not too happy about distribution either!
Nah but jokes aside, I understand the problem is more complex than “capitalism = bad”, but I find it to be the case that whenever population decline and nativity numbers pop up as a big societal issue it’s motivated by the prospect of failing to meet GDP numbers or whatever.
If we look at it pragmatically, perhaps philosophically, and I think we should, then what is a “good” number of humans in a society? Is there even stated such an equilibrium where it’s just right, the nativity and mortality are equal and the age statistics follow a nominal age distribution? Because I sure never hear about it.
I find this question „what is a good number of humans in a society?“ unethical and dangerous.
Who are you to say this is the right number and you guys aren’t allowed to have kids. Because the number is full?
And do you think one has to distribute the number across regions globally? If so, Europe get it’s human budget and Africa as well? As Africa is growing in population last decades, does it mean that Africans can’t get kids anymore. Because their number is full? But Europeans are allowed?
What’s about age? If people get older by the better lifestandards, we can have less kids. Because the number gets full by very old people. Who cares the old people and who rund the economy. Who is changing and disrupting society if not teenagers. Will the society fixed in stone and resistant for change?
That‘s just a few philosphical thoughts about a „righr number of people“.
If you want to get a sense of practical consequences, get a glimpse to China. There was a big plan of the right number that led to the One-Child-Policy. Look thorougly into it and see the unethical outcomes it made.
fun fact: i talked with a few people recently and we concluded that a sinking birthrate is actually better for the economy because otherwise the state will habe to raise higher taxes in the future to pay for all the unemployment money …
Avoiding inflation, as it were…
sinking birthrate is leading to massively increasing payments into social security due to overaging of the population…
so one can argue that it is worse for the “economy” due to decreasing purchase power
no, that’s right-wing propaganda who wants to have more workers available to exploit as cheap workforce. more workers -> lower wages. supply and demand.
