SoI think we could do a list about how we could cut the waste...
My main problem is... let's forget about eenrgy consumption (which it can be redcued with noa ctual effect int he economy).. what happens if we reduce consumption of the other stuff? Would it mean less jobs? would it mean less grow?
Are we able to get a society where no GDP growth does not mean less jobs?
In other words, is the capitalism system soe asy to ajust? or do we need to get tot he point where we "invent" a cheap source of energy which does no contaminate. so taht we can consume infintely things taht are complete waste but taht are not hurtful tyo the environment? or would the system reamin healthy and in place by cutting the non-sense consumption?
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
(However, if one holds some old fashion notion that a 'job' constitutes 40h payed wage labour each week, the 'jobs' would presumably be fewer. I cannot see why or how one would advocate for this, though.)
The lump of labour or lump of jobs fallacy is an argument generally considered to be fallacious that the amount of work available to labourers is fixed. Contending that the amount of work is flexible not static, most economists oppose such arguments. Another way to say this is that it treats a quantity as if it were an exogenous variable, when it's not. It may also be called the fallacy of labour scarcity, or the zero-sum fallacy, from its ties to the zero-sum game.
And I kinda doubt the fallacy, with the way UK and France have about the same amount of hours worked ; the greater UK work participation rate due to, well, shorter weeks on average. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
