the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.
In the context of the labor market, that means:
If there’s fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.
You’re assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 20% of the people, buying power only goes down by something like 2%. Therefore your point seems disputed?
counterpoint:
the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.
In the context of the labor market, that means: If there’s fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.
More people also means more demand for things that require labour to create however. Your position is referred to as the lump of labour fallacy
You’re assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 20% of the people, buying power only goes down by something like 2%. Therefore your point seems disputed?