What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?
Wikipedia defines common sense as "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument"
Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they're a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.
125
Comments139
The immune system is strong and defends your body against germs.
The immune system works 100% of 50% of the time. Immunology is the best way to convince someone that it's a miracle that they're still alive. Anyways, get vaccinated. Don't rely on your immune system to figure things out
Another variation of that is claiming how getting sick repeatedly is somehow beneficial for getting a strong immune system. That ignores research, as children who have a lot of common infections early in life have higher risk of moderate to severe infections and antibiotic use throughout childhood. That also ignores viruses for which a durable immunity isn't currently possible, such as COVID.
EDIT: Basically the immunity system doesn't work like a muscle.
I think the immune system can be likened to a muscle if someone really wants to go with that metaphor, but only if you consider vaccines to be the gym and getting sick is uncontrollable and dangerous physical exertion. So, wanting to develop natural immunity is like wanting to get into street fights to build arm strength. It might kinda work, but you'll also be in a lot of unnecessary danger.
For real.
Looking up how almost any potentially deadly disease attacks a human body just makes you go "how tf do you beat that".
The answer is usually just "your immune systems kills it faster than it kills you" and that ain't some sure-fire defense. It's a straight up microbiological war happening inside you.
Which is why you should get vaccinated.
Vaccination primes your immune system so it can mount a coordinated response the first time it actually encounters the pathogen.
Yup, vaccination isn't reinforcements, it's training. It's having the other team's playbook before they even step foot on the field.
... in time to keep you alive. I mean, given enough time, the body will figure things out. Vaccines are cheat-sheets to cut that time so it's accomplished before the host dies.
Or overreact, and kill you that way. Viral fevers, allergies and septic shock are all examples.
Evolution is not a human designer. It's produces an endless pile of kludges that ends up working well enough. Although, in some ways that's even more impressive.
Umm, it's your immune system that detects the vaccine and responds to it by developing antibodies specific to the vaccine (and by extension to the actual disease). Just as it would when challenged in real life by the pathogen.
Vaccination basically gives your immune system a several day head start on producing antibodies.
Not entirely true. Vaccines induce the adaptive immune system, which is slow but precise. Getting sick for real induces the innate immune system, which is god awful and you should not be relying on it. S. pneumoniae causes pneumonia because the innate immune system goes overdrive and kills you before it kills the bacteria. COVID-19 induces cell-innate inflammasome activation and leads to a cytokine storm, which then leads to even more damage to the lungs as the immune cells come in. Both diseases have effective vaccines that do not do anything close to this.
Deadly diseases tend to be deadly not because of the microbe itself, but because the innate immune system overreacts and kills you in the process of fighting off the disease.
Getting vaccinated diminishes the role that the innate immune system plays when you get sick, since the B cells responsible for producing antibodies for the disease are already mature. Having available antibodies also allows the immune system to rely on the complement system, which allows it to detect and kill invading microbes way earlier than otherwise.
No.
Getting sick without already being immune leaves your body trying to speed-run anti-body development, while ALSO fighting the disease using more basic physiological responses.
And even with anti-bodies, you're not actually impervious. You can still get sick with diseases you're "immune" to, as even deployment of disease-specific anti-bodies is a complex biological process that can go wrong, come too late, or not be enough.
Given time, a person can develop "immunity" against a lot of stuff, but that still doesn't mean every cell in your body is then changed in a way where that pathogen just bounces off.
You see this most recently with Covid, as people who are vaccinated still get infections, but unlike with unvaccinated people, the body fights it off in a couple days, rather than a few weeks.
But it does still takes those couple days for the latent immunity to kick in, and for the body to deploy that defense.
Another person already commented on how different components of the immune system respond differently, and might even be what kills you faster than the disease.
This is actually good common sense. It works much more than 50% of the time. You're responding to the very specific instance of anti-vaxxers, whose claims of relying on the immune system instead of vaccines are not considered common sense by most people.
No, I'm responding to regular people. Your immune system is way less effective than you think, hence the wrong common sense part.
Pretty much anything related to statistics and probability. People have gut feelings because our minds are really good at finding patterns, but we're also really good at making up patterns that don't exist.
The one people probably have most experience with is the gambler's fallacy. After losing more than expected, people think they'll now be more likely to win.
I also like the Monty Hall problem and the birthday problem.
The gambler’s fallacy is pretty easy to get, as is the Monty Hall problem if you restate the question as having 100 doors instead of 3. But for the life of me I don’t think I’ll ever have an intuitive understanding of the birthday problem. That one just boggles my mind constantly.
Really? The birthday problem is a super simple multiplication, you can do it on paper. The only thing you really need to understand is the inversion of probability (
P(A) = 1 - P(not A)).The Monty hall problem... I've understood it at times, but every time I come back to it I have to figure it out again, usually with help. That shit is unintuitive.
My favourite explanation of the Monty hall problem is that you probably picked the wrong door as your first choice (because there’s 2/3 chance of it being wrong). Therefore once the third door is removed and you’re given the option to switch you should, because assuming you did pick the wrong door first then the other door has to be the right one
Thanks for the help, it was easier this time 😅
Adding my own explanation, because I think it clicks better for me (especially when I write it down):
p(switch|picked wrong) = 100%), so the total chance of the remaining door being correct isp(switch|picked wrong)* p(picked wrong) = 66%.p(switch|picked right) = 50%, which means thatp(switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%.p(don't switch|picked wrong) * p(picked wrong) = 50% * 66% = 33%(because of the remaining doors including the one you picked, you have no more information)p(don't switch|picked right) * p(picked right) = 50% * 33% = 17%(because both of the unpicked doors are wrong, Monty didn't give you more information)So there's a strong benefit of switching (66% to 33%) if you picked wrong, and even odds of switching if you picked right (17% in both cases).
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
My explanation is better:
There's three doors, of which one is the winner.
First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.
Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.
Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!
Lemme try my favorite way to explain the birthday problem without getting too mathy:
If you take 23 people, that's 253 pairs of people to compare (23 people x22 others to pair them with/2 people per pair). That's a lot of pairs to check and get only unique answers
One of my favourite pages on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
The thing about that is that it's a little too complete. How can there be both negativity bias and normalcy bias, for example?
To make any sense, you'd need to break it down into a flowchart or algorithm of some kind, that predicts the skew from objectivity based on the situation and personality tendencies.
I think they probably appear in different types of situations, not all at once. And maybe different types of people/thinking are more prone to some than to others.
Exactly. I feel like just listing them out is of limited use because of that.
It's extremely useful, because it's an index to all the known things that might be useful in a given situation. The point is not to assess all of them, the point is to not miss ones you're unfamiliar with that may be important in your situation.
I imagine psychologists can do more with it, but in practice the main thing I see formal fallacies used for is as something to shout during a debate, and it never seems to convince anyone.
If you can catch yourself using one, that's good I guess.
I work in the risk assessment space, so they are kind of critical to be aware of, for me :)
Related to gambling: being "pot committed"
Pot committed is more a math reality with a small amount of sunk cost fallacy. There's always a non zero chance someone is bluffing. A 99% chance to lose $11 is better than a 100% chance to lose $10 if you can win $100 on that 1%.
Less tax is better.
No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.
I'm not mad at the huge amount I pay in taxes. I'm mad about what I get in return.
Yeah, that's fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.
But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)
Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.
I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it's them that keeps electing those people.
How so?
If one doesn't vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.
If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won't win the vote anyway.
The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn't a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it's slime no matter how you vote)
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it'll be obvious pretty fast.
So, you're assuming we're all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
And don't forget 'rich', or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can't gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
Well, in countries like mine there's donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That's not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they're voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.
Refreshing to hear!
I haven't looked into this but I'm tempted to believe that immediately. Election awareness is amazingly low, even among people who do have strong political beliefs.
Oh man, I've knocked on so many doors where people named the party they were definitely voting for, but didn't know which level of government the election was on for. Like, they think they're voting for mayor when it's actually a federal election, for example.
That's kind of extreme, but the fact it's not rare shows you the level of actual engagement there is. I've come to consider public elections as more of a safety valve for when things veer into actual corruption, and am not so sure direct democracy is a good idea at all, anymore.
A lot of outdoor survival "common sense" can get you killed:
Moss doesn't exclusively grow on the north side of trees. Local conditions are too chaotic and affect what side is most conducive to moss. Don't use moss for navigation.
Don't drink alcohol to warm yourself up. It feels warm but actually does the opposite: alcohol opens up your capillaries and allows more heat to escape through your skin, which means you lose body heat a lot faster.
Don't eat snow to rehydrate yourself. It will only make you freeze to death faster. Melt the snow outside of your body first.
Don't assume a berry is safe to eat just because you see birds eating them. You're not a bird. Your digestive system is very different from a bird's digestive system.
If you've been starving for a long time, don't gorge yourself at the first opportunity when you get back to civilization. You can get refeeding syndrome which can kill you. It's best to go to the hospital where you can be monitored and have nutrients slowly reintroduced in a way that won't upset the precarious balance your body has found itself in.
Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.
Also, do people not know every berry isn't edible? Even here where not a lot grows, there's plenty of decorative ones around that will give you the violent shits.
Ideally you'd use an external heat source to melt the snow so you're not wasting your body heat on it (it's also generally a good idea to boil water of unknown quality before drinking it to reduce the risk of getting sick, which would be especially bad if you're lost in the wilderness). Failing that, I've also heard people recommend filling a water bottle with snow and putting it in between the layers of clothing you're wearing so it's not directly touching your skin, that way you don't lose a bunch of heat really quickly.
I guess that's true, if you eat a whole bunch of snow at once you could get too cold - especially if you do it while not moving. If you have a fire, of course this is all a non-issue; just make sure not to light yourself, your surroundings or your container on fire, especially during sleep.
Hmm. Are there known cases of illness known from snow melt? It's not guaranteed clean like domestic potable water, but I can't imagine it carries too much by natural water standards, either.
There's always a risk of bacteria. Maybe not super high a risk, but getting food poisoning while lost in the woods can really screw you over.
Ah, I guess the way it was worded that could be it.
I do know tucking some under your coat in a container is one thing you can do, if you're in a desperate situation. At best that slows down the rate of heat loss, though.
that putting the thermostat up higher will heat the house up quicker (edit: I have in mind a bog standard UK home thermostat)
that sugary sweets make kids act "hyper"
that the moon's apparent size is due to how close it is to earth (same for seasons and the sun)
that your base metabolic rate slows as you age and is primarily responsible for you putting weight on in middle age
In the case of inverter air conditioning it might make a small difference at it won't throttle down as it approaches the intended, not commanded, target.
If you have a 2 stage furnace, this may actually be a thing.
Is this not true?
No. At least, it's not the general cause of 'middle age spread'.
The base metabolic rate refers to how your individual cells respire when at rest. And a brain cell in 20 year old respires much the same way as a brain cell in a 45 year old. Same for all other organs. There is a gradual decline but it's on the order a single percents.
Organs and tissue at rest respire at different rates, so some of the change people notice is due to change in body composition. Muscle at rest burns twice the calories as fat however this is still only a minor contribution.
Base metabolic rate doesn't vary much at all. The vast difference in daily calories consumed as one ages is general activity level.
Overall metabolic rate = base rate (varies a little on body composition) + calories burned in general activity (varies a lot)
People typically are less active between 20 and 40. This is not just sport but also lifestyle. People become more efficient in their habits as they age. They drive instead of biking or walking. They sit in the sun on holiday with nice food and wine rather than dancing all night. Etc
Lifestyle choice is the primary cause of excess calorie intake and 'middle age spread'. Not "my metabolism that I can't do anything about".
Same with electric range/ovens.
Is this true?? I always assumed that electric ranges simply had a variable duty cycle controlled by the knob. That would mean that if you want to get a pot up to a specific temperature, the fastest way is to set the knob to high until you reach the temperature, then reduce the knob to the desired temperature.
This is different from how an HVAC works, where you set an actual temperature and the HVAC runs until that temperature is reached.
But I could be totally wrong about how electric ranges work.
I tested mine with an infrared thermometer: Starting cold, I turned one burner to medium and another to high, and measured them as they heated up. They heated at the same rate until the medium burner reached its target temperature.
Interesting... if that's true, then you can know what temperature each setting on the knob is.
I wonder if this is true for all electric ranges?
Explain?
Also, what's the size/proximity of seasons?
The visual difference of the minimoon and supermoon is not that great, see here but hold your phone at arms length. This is the maximum difference (taken 6 months apart) that the moon ever is relative to itself. In practice, from one night to the next or one month to the next the difference is barely noticeable.
When people say "the moon was huge tonight" what they are generally seeing is the moon illusion
The reference to seasons is badly worded, but what I was referring to is that the earths seasons have nothing to do with how close to the sun it is
Ah, I didn't realize the moon could look bigger/smaller at different times. I thought you were saying that the moon is actually the same size as the sun or something like that.
Huh, these are all common sense statements I would have assumed true. Four our of four, good work!
Do you happen to have a source for that? Coz I have witnessed kids act like a horde of wild monkeys on crack right after eating dessert on multiple occasions.
I listed it because it's one of the things I would sworn by too having seen it first hand. However when you conduct a double blind experiment, kids still get excited at parties / treats / days out / when their friends are over when there's no sugar in the treats.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-does-sugar-make-children-hyperactive
In otherwords as parents we massively underestimate how excited or crazy kids can get just because they're excited and not because of something in their bloodstream..
That may be the case. I will need to conduct my own research^^
Make sure it's a blind test ;)
The claim and evidence here are not logically consistent.
It's like saying "cyanide won't make you dead" because, look "people still get dead from falling and crocodiles, even if there's no cyanide around".
no, it's not. it's a meta analysis of multiple double blind studies. multiple
if you did the same with cyanide you would be able to conclude that "taking cyanide and being dead is positively correlated" even if there were other causes of death. in this wide summary of multiple double blind experiements, there is no correlation between sugar intake and child behaviour. that's not to say kids don't act up and get hyper, but it's other causes, most signficantly parents just underestimate how hard kids find it to regulate themselves when having treats of any sort (non-sugar included) or being in a party atmosphere with friends.
That budgets for households, businesses, and goverments have much to do with each other
Edit: fixed typo. 'nd' to 'and'.
Hurr durr but the national debt is like a credit card and all debt is bad. China can just say pay up and we're fucked.
And other stupid shit my parents used to say.
Yeah, them and what army? (Well, the PLA, but going into MAD and great power military strategy would be too much of a digression)
A classical example of Westerners thinking human laws are laws of physics somehow. I assume Westerners, anyway. It'd be weird to hear this from anyone recently imported.
They are more similar than they are different though. The numbers are bigger and the limits aren't known, but they do exist. Many countries have felt the pain of excessive debt, the arguments that it can't happen to the US are essentially that the US is a unicorn country.
The US is a unicorn country because the US dollar is the primary currency in the world. If the Euro supplanted the US dollar for that position, then the problems with excessive debt could absolutely happen in the US.
That's becoming less true year over year though. Excessive debt can make it less attractive as a standard in addition to the growth of both the Euro zone and BRICS.
True enough. And Trump could very well accelerate that with his economic temper tantrums. Still, I don't know what currency BRICS would settle on; certainly not the ruble, not after Putin cratered the whole country's economy. The yuan?
What they settle on isn't too important other than it won't be the dollar.
the government can go into unlimited debt if it is willing to cause a hyperinflation at some point later in the future to eliminate all of that debt.
Hmm. Business budgets are pretty similar to household budgets.
In government budgets thing do get a little fuzzy, because historically they always run a slight deficit until they fall to war or revolution and "reset". If it's a rich country, they can raise taxes whenever they feel like, too, assuming they don't care about re-election.
Police are there to help you.
They can help you for the rest of your life
Folk idioms that contradict each other are my favourite. For example, "the cream rises to the top" vs. "it's not what you know, it's who you know".
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease"
"The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."
I like to try and combine these to see what kind of reactions I get.
The cream rises to who you know.
The squeaky wheel gets hammered down.
He who laughs last, comes around.
Great minds killed the cat!
Good call, I'll start looking out for these!
To tilt your head back if you have a blood nose.
This is no longer recommended advice, because you end up drinking the blood which causes vomiting.
Way to stop them is put ice over the back of neck, plug nose with tissue and clear clots each 2 mins.
Any reason not to just let it run? If not on blood thinners.
You can let it run.
I find it clots better by using tissues to plug the flow.
There are plenty of studies debunking it, and yet I still hear about it all the time.
This is a common argument in our house.
In Germany, people are very concerned about Zugluft, i.e. draft from opening multiple windows.
Not on a train?
Pressing the crosswalk button over and over will make the light change faster.
Well it finally changed the 8th time I pressed it, so checkmate.
I think we know it doesn't help, but we do it anyway.
Serious question, why? Stress relief of button-pushing? Thinking it might work and that it can't be slower than doing nothing?
I just don't feel any urge to push the button.
There's no rationality to it. I don't get out my calculator and graph paper to plot out the best possible course of action. I just push the button a few times. And sometimes I push it a few more times.
Surely there's some reward or motivation, whether it's rational or not. Would you feel any different if you didn't do it?
If I didn't do it then I'd be thinking about doing it.
I'll interrogate my inner experience next time I'm standing at the lights, and I'll report back if I discover anything interesting (unless it's really damning information).
haha thanks, I appreciate it.
Sometimes buttons don't work the first time you press them.
The buttons are intended to be placebo except in some places.
I'm in one of those places. In Utah, many crosswalk lights won't turn on at all unless you press the button, and the button can completely change the light timing and ordering (e.g. a protected left turn light activates at the end of a cycle instead of at the beginning).
Traffic engineers here are sometimes allowed to do some fairly interesting things.
Interesting
In my experience it's only automated in the cities and most of the lights are manual everywhere else.
I don't have evidence, but I have heard there are also times of day when it's automated and when it's manual. So you might need to press it at midnight but not during rush hour. Interesting if true.
Common sense itself.
Some people put way too much stock in "common sense" as some blanket assumption and insult to lob at anything and everything they don't like.
They internally define what they believe to be "common" and everything that deviates is outside of that. They use it to fuel their own sense of self satisfaction and smugness, while additionally fueling negativity and hatred for others.
It fuels their toxicity and comes to define their view of everything, which is typically grossly oversimplified for their own needs.
Precisely.
Isn't that true, all other things being equal?
Depends.
Compound bows are designed such that you put in a LOT of energy where your mechanical advantage is high (at the start of the draw) then less as your mechanical advantage diminishes (at the end of the draw).
This makes the bow very "light" to pull and easy to hold drawn, but the energy with which the arrow will be fired is higher than almost any other design, save some cross-bows.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that also change the way that the arrow is accelerated by the bow? Like, it starts a little slower, and then has increased acceleration until the string returns the the starting position? Whereas a long or recurve bow is going to have the hardest acceleration at the very start, since that's where the most energy is stored?
And if that's true, how does that affect the flight of the arrow? I know that with stick bows, the arrow bows as it's being accelerated, and then wobbles slightly before stabilizing a few feet in front of the bow. Some of that is likely because the arrow has to bend around the bow stave. But do you see less of that with a compound bow?
A modern compound bow will fire the arrow in a straight line, directly forwards, as the bow will have a section that allows the arrow to be shot through the space that would be occupied by the stave on a traditional bow. While the bow must obviously be gripped in line with the tension, the rest of the center section is offset to allow the archer to both shoot and sight directly along the line the arrow will travel.
How much firing then causes the arrow to bend would depend entirely on the stiffness of the arrow, but the resulting total energy being imparted is not going to be different just because the acceleration curve is different. If the arrow bends, then yes, you'd lose some energy to that.
But if anything, starting off slow and then accelerating harder as you go is the gentler and more efficient acceleration curve when accounting for that.
In a traditional long bow yes. In a modern compound bow, not necessarily.
Is common sense just an earlier, naive label for confirmation bias?
A key aspect is that it doesn't even require confirmation.
"Bigger is better"
The most vulnerable will be hit the hardest.
Is the goal to point out contradictions in the pairs you gave?
The goal is to show that nonsense espoused as common sense usually comes in pairs.
That way, the liar can hoodwink you into any direction he/she wants you to.
Common sense isn't just "not so common," it is a fundamentally broken concept at its core and a crutch that people use to hoist themselves above others they feel they are better than.
“Survival of the fittest”
bitch, explain cows
Cows are the most fit for their environment. Their environment being a useful and sustainable food source for humans to cultivate.
In all of my ecology classes they were super specific about re-framing that concept as "survival of the fit enough"
You don't actually have to be the best example of something to have your traits carried along, just good enough to consistently make it to reproductive age and then procreate.
It helps explain a lot of weird survival mechanisms - it doesn't have to be the best way to do things but if it consistently works, then it's good enough. Like the old saying "if it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid"
Fittest for the purpose of being chosen by farmers to participate in breeding.
Lol a better example would be "bitch, explain humans" we're the biggest anomaly to this statement. In ecology we refer to our evolutionary perseverance as "survival of the collaborative"
Bulls seem like they are capable of herd defense, they are kept isolated for a reason. Same with roosters and chickens.
Cows are not a natural species
the sky is blue
an unbiased perspective
More abstract concepts that generally trouble the intuition of many:
the irrelevance of laminar to turbulent flow
time and gravity are related
magnetism is not magic
entropy precludes perpetual motion
The sky isn't blue in many cultures. It's been shown that words for blue only occur in a language after that culture has discovered a blue dye. And that limitation in available words also constrains how you see and think about the world.
This is covered in Guy Deutscher's book The Unfolding of Language, which is an excellent read.
I was going with Rayleigh scattering, but that works too
The sky is actually the entire colour spectrum with a bias toward the short wavelength end of the spectrum, which is why it appears pale blue-ish white.
If "common sense is not very common", why is it called common sense?
Slightly off topic, sorry.
When people say that, they mean they're so much smarter than everyone else they could fix it all in a moment.
Of course, in reality, the cranky old man saying that has just stayed so uninformed about the issues he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
I view it as a thought terminating cliché people use when they're too lazy ti fully explain themselves. It can be useful for things that are truly obvious, like if you try touching something fresh out of the stove without protection you'll get burned, it doesn't really add anything to bother explaining it.
"There's a first time for everything."
No, not if I don't do that thing. I will not have a first time for murder. Getting murdered might be out of my control, but I won't commit one.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?
That means you ahould take the immesiate payoff or be happy with what you have instead of spensing a bunch of time trying to get more.
Hehe ok I'll wear those down votes. I didn't understand the reference as I heard it first on The Two Ronnies as 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the shepherd's bush' which I think think might be a carry-on reference.
I didn't see why l would want a bird in my hand in the first place.
PS - what happened to your D key?
I switched keyboards on android, new one doesn't have autocorrect or swipe, but it doesn't connect to the internet. I don't always proofread posts.
that is a false thought. The labor market is regulated by supply and demand. That means, fewer workers lead to higher wages and a higher quality of life. It might seem paradoxical, but having a smaller workforce means people in the country will be able to afford more stuff.
That is especially important as people discuss the birth-rate, and immigration, in all countries, also in the US and in Europe. People say things such as "women have 1.6 children on average, which means our population is declining, and obviously that is the reason why our quality-of-life seems to be going down as well". However, the opposite is true. As automation takes over and well-paying (and meaningful) jobs are eroded, having fewer people around doing all the work actually drives wages up, and leads to an improved quality-of-life.
The labor market is indeed regulated by that supply and demand. That is a foregone conclusion. However, that doesn't guarantee necessarily higher wages and thus higher quality of life, proportionately speaking.
That itself is a struggle over whether "general profit", after accounting for wages, is reinvested for the social needs, such as housing, food and water, education.
Assuming that "general profit" (savings) + wages (needed for laborers' means of subsistence) = value created.
And assuming wages are sufficient enough for higher quality of life.
But put into the equation the landlords, the shareholders, industrialists that dominate our world by virtue of owning the property that shapes it, who want to depress wages, if it means more "general profit", and direct their savings towards more capital accumulation