Yeah. Nobody dying of the plague seems like a great way to cheat the numbers. I’m sure the administration at the time claimed it was their innovative health care policy.
It says in the aftermath, so all of the people that survived, received the technological and medical benefits from the reshaped political system caused by the wipe out of a big portion of the working class.
I didn't, but Google is a wonderful thing sometimes. After getting away from all the baseball results, I think you're referencing "Inferno" ? Seems interesting
A plague wouldn't do for us (developed countries) now what it did for Europe then. Not because we don't have overpopulation, we most certainly do have overpopulation. The biggest economic shift that followed the black plague was caused by a shortage of workers. If you don't have enough workers, you have to offer better wages to attract more people, and this means your competitors have to offer more wages or they won't have enough workers. While this leads to some inflation, not enough to outweigh the pay gain when resources are so plentiful relative to population size.
A plague now might allow more resources per person, but we are suffering from a lack of resources as much as a lack of distribution of resources. (At least in the United States). The only reason more companies haven't moved to robot labor is that it is not yet cheaper than paying wages. Some work still needs to be done by humans, but we have learned to do a great deal without human help. If it becomes to expensive...
... to hire humans, companies will use more robot labor. Bypassing the need for higher wages.
I'm not say in ng robot labor is bad. I think it has the potential to allow for a world that is better than the world we ever could have without it. But it creates some issues with labor. The fact is, the less people there are fighting over the same number of jobs, the better each worker will be treated.
The real problem with high unemployment rates isn't that deadbeat people are feeding off the system. The problem is that high unemployment rates are symptomatic of more people than jobs. And this hurts everyone. When there are more people than jobs (many) employers no longer need to pay competitive wages. Humans are a dime a dozen. Someone will work for minimum wage. Employers still need to pay more for skilled labor, but less when there is a surplus of skilled laborers, such as is created when difficulty getting a job that pays the bills leads people to educate in droves.
A plague now might allow more resources per person, but we are suffering from a lack of resources as much as a lack of distribution of resources. (At least in the United States). The only reason more companies haven't moved to robot labor is that it is not yet cheaper than paying wages. Some work still needs to be done by humans, but we have learned to do a great deal without human help. If it becomes to expensive...
I'm not say in ng robot labor is bad. I think it has the potential to allow for a world that is better than the world we ever could have without it. But it creates some issues with labor. The fact is, the less people there are fighting over the same number of jobs, the better each worker will be treated.
The real problem with high unemployment rates isn't that deadbeat people are feeding off the system. The problem is that high unemployment rates are symptomatic of more people than jobs. And this hurts everyone. When there are more people than jobs (many) employers no longer need to pay competitive wages. Humans are a dime a dozen. Someone will work for minimum wage. Employers still need to pay more for skilled labor, but less when there is a surplus of skilled laborers, such as is created when difficulty getting a job that pays the bills leads people to educate in droves.