7 ms·

There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards growth. When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are

There's another big aspect to this: the orientation of the economy towards growth. When you start asking "What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever", and the answers are pretty grim. Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the next ~20 years.

TomMarius 8y ago
The math involves space mining.
ben_w 8y ago
My expectation is that the ratio of productive workers for each retiree will be approximately constant, and the retirement age will be adjusted to match… at least, up until the next black swan or grey swan. At this rate, I expect at least one of those to happen between now and 2030.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > My expectation is that the ratio of productive workers for each retiree will be approximately constant, and the retirement age will be adjusted to match… This isn't necessarily a problem as long as the number of productive workers continues to increase.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Is there any circumstance where adjusted retirement age would not be sufficient? Even in extremis, if there were zero births and zero or negative immigration, would setting it to 130 not be sufficient?
    - anticensor 8y ago
      You would retire beneath your grave. Human lifespan is 120 years maximum.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        That’s why I picked the number.
trevyn 8y ago
>Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the next ~20 years. Long-term systems like this are generally constantly adjusted over time to fit circumstances, and overall productivity per person is rising overall. Reframing the problem as a target quality of life vs. a target monetary amount may also help. More generally, using history as a guide, it is unwise to rely on any human organization to keep its specific long-term promises. So, ye reap what ye sow. Of course, the secret lying in plain sight is that happiness/well-being need not be a function of money at all.
- hopler 8y ago
  The tricky bit is that human social connections, our greatest psychological need, are both the lowest cost source of value (friendship, conversion, and sex are free) and source of highest expenses (social pressure to spend money to maintain relationships and status).
  - fwip 8y ago
    I think you might live in an unusual way if you spend more on relationships than food or housing.
quickthrower2 8y ago
Because growth in terms of money which has no inherent value is meaningless. The real growth is in knowledge and technology and connections. The real value is in the systems we create.
- jononor 8y ago
  How do you measure the value of these systems? The knowledge, technology and connections?
  - quickthrower2 8y ago
    I don't think you can objectively. Money isn't a good measure, we all though that what someone gets paid is not necessarily in line with their contribution to a company or society.
AznHisoka 8y ago
1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.
- mhluongo 8y ago
  > Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?
  - AznHisoka 8y ago
    True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this point being made.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Labor shortages are basically a myth. They only exist when governments impose artificial wage limits.
- xondono 8y ago
  It’s a known phenomenon in economy. The modern name is “make-work bias”.
- Retric 8y ago
  US population is growing. So the steady state employment rate requires ~190,000 net jobs to be added every month. If the number is below that the a lower percentage of population is employed this month than last month.
  - AznHisoka 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
njepa 8y ago
I see what you are saying, but I largely disagree with the premise. We have had, and continue to have, enormous growth through technical and organizational achievements. Growth is relative, but life mostly remain constant. The requirements to house, cloth and transport people remain largely the same. The idea that we can't have retirement becomes absurd viewed over a lifetime of spending on housing, insurance and other fees. The average city dweller today gives away hundreds of thousands if not millions in rents, interest rates and other inflated costs.
- orthecreedence 8y ago
  Are you arguing for removing essentials like (some) housing and clothing from market forces in order to keep prices from being artificially inflated? I'm beginning to agree. I think people should still be able to buy houses, but I think municipalities should also buy apartments/houses and rent them out at-cost. This would put significant downward pressure on "essentials" while still allowing choice (nobody is stopping you from buying a house). Hypercommodification of every aspect of our lives is starting to grow tiresome and the benefits it gives ("choice" supposedly) is only realized by those who hold a decent portion of the capital.
- saltcured 8y ago
  I think that people who argue a perpetual growth requirement are fundamentally doubting that an economy can store (sufficient) value for the future. They are rejecting that life-long earnings can be saved and invested in a person's own non-productive retirement. They are presupposing hand-to-mouth living and assigning roles to the actors in that final scene. I suppose it is true in isolation. How many years of food, energy, and medicine could you stockpile for yourself to consume in your end years? There are practical limits due to spoilage, etc. If you instead have to devise a way to keep producing for yourself, we might quibble over whether that is really retirement...? It's also easy enough to run thought experiments and demonstrate how a collapsing population has an unpleasant end-game. Like musical chairs, eventually someone loses. The last people to die will die alone, with nobody to nurse them. Before that, systems will collapse, reducing the efficiencies that survivors depend on for quality of life. But, what are all the phases in between? How long can a society sustainably function at a fixed or slowly reducing size? Could we gracefully transition to earlier modes such as functioning agrarian, hunter-gatherer, or frontier communities? Can those retro communities still enjoy technological benefits developed by their larger forebears? Or do we have to assume war, famine, and post-apocalyptic wasteland? This seems like more of a psychology test than a useful debate. We can establish our various moods and dispositions, but not prognosticate a large-scale future. At a more personal level, can't we live a good life even if we are the last one to turn out the lights? Don't we all die alone, regardless of the number of attending nurses and medical billing?
bootsz 8y ago
> What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://steadystate.org/ https://steadystate.org/
zwkrt 8y ago
It's almost like human health and wellness shouldn't rely on the economy!
coliveira 8y ago
> What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever This is a problem that has been studied by every serious economist that looks beyond the existing structure of capitalism. Although we don't know exact shop of the future, the answer is that capitalism as we know, and specially finance, will stop working and we will need a different economic paradigm to organize our lives.

TomMarius 8y ago

The math involves space mining.

ben_w 8y ago

My expectation is that the ratio of productive workers for each retiree will be approximately constant, and the retirement age will be adjusted to match… at least, up until the next black swan or grey swan. At this rate, I expect at least one of those to happen between now and 2030.

speedplane 8y ago
> My expectation is that the ratio of productive workers for each retiree will be approximately constant, and the retirement age will be adjusted to match… This isn't necessarily a problem as long as the number of productive workers continues to increase.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Is there any circumstance where adjusted retirement age would not be sufficient? Even in extremis, if there were zero births and zero or negative immigration, would setting it to 130 not be sufficient?
  - anticensor 8y ago
    You would retire beneath your grave. Human lifespan is 120 years maximum.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      That’s why I picked the number.

trevyn 8y ago

>Retirement systems, for example, need a certain ratio of productive workers for each retiree, and I can't figure out any math that makes sense for the next ~20 years. Long-term systems like this are generally constantly adjusted over time to fit circumstances, and overall productivity per person is rising overall. Reframing the problem as a target quality of life vs. a target monetary amount may also help. More generally, using history as a guide, it is unwise to rely on any human organization to keep its specific long-term promises. So, ye reap what ye sow. Of course, the secret lying in plain sight is that happiness/well-being need not be a function of money at all.

hopler 8y ago
The tricky bit is that human social connections, our greatest psychological need, are both the lowest cost source of value (friendship, conversion, and sex are free) and source of highest expenses (social pressure to spend money to maintain relationships and status).
- fwip 8y ago
  I think you might live in an unusual way if you spend more on relationships than food or housing.

quickthrower2 8y ago

Because growth in terms of money which has no inherent value is meaningless. The real growth is in knowledge and technology and connections. The real value is in the systems we create.

jononor 8y ago
How do you measure the value of these systems? The knowledge, technology and connections?
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  I don't think you can objectively. Money isn't a good measure, we all though that what someone gets paid is not necessarily in line with their contribution to a company or society.

AznHisoka 8y ago

1 thing I never understood is this obsession towards jobs growth. Every month, when this number is released, everyone wants this number to be better than the last month. Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. People are freaking crazy.

mhluongo 8y ago
> Yet if everyone who wants a job eventually gets one, this number will eventually go to zero. And if it goes to zero, that would be a good thing. Yet everyone panics if the number of jobs created that month goes down. Unless there's a labor shortage?
- AznHisoka 8y ago
  True but the narrative is always about the possibility of a recession and companies being afraid to invest in their businesses. Rarely do I see this point being made.
- nradov 8y ago
  Labor shortages are basically a myth. They only exist when governments impose artificial wage limits.
xondono 8y ago
It’s a known phenomenon in economy. The modern name is “make-work bias”.
Retric 8y ago
US population is growing. So the steady state employment rate requires ~190,000 net jobs to be added every month. If the number is below that the a lower percentage of population is employed this month than last month.
- AznHisoka 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

njepa 8y ago

I see what you are saying, but I largely disagree with the premise. We have had, and continue to have, enormous growth through technical and organizational achievements. Growth is relative, but life mostly remain constant. The requirements to house, cloth and transport people remain largely the same. The idea that we can't have retirement becomes absurd viewed over a lifetime of spending on housing, insurance and other fees. The average city dweller today gives away hundreds of thousands if not millions in rents, interest rates and other inflated costs.

orthecreedence 8y ago
Are you arguing for removing essentials like (some) housing and clothing from market forces in order to keep prices from being artificially inflated? I'm beginning to agree. I think people should still be able to buy houses, but I think municipalities should also buy apartments/houses and rent them out at-cost. This would put significant downward pressure on "essentials" while still allowing choice (nobody is stopping you from buying a house). Hypercommodification of every aspect of our lives is starting to grow tiresome and the benefits it gives ("choice" supposedly) is only realized by those who hold a decent portion of the capital.
saltcured 8y ago
I think that people who argue a perpetual growth requirement are fundamentally doubting that an economy can store (sufficient) value for the future. They are rejecting that life-long earnings can be saved and invested in a person's own non-productive retirement. They are presupposing hand-to-mouth living and assigning roles to the actors in that final scene. I suppose it is true in isolation. How many years of food, energy, and medicine could you stockpile for yourself to consume in your end years? There are practical limits due to spoilage, etc. If you instead have to devise a way to keep producing for yourself, we might quibble over whether that is really retirement...? It's also easy enough to run thought experiments and demonstrate how a collapsing population has an unpleasant end-game. Like musical chairs, eventually someone loses. The last people to die will die alone, with nobody to nurse them. Before that, systems will collapse, reducing the efficiencies that survivors depend on for quality of life. But, what are all the phases in between? How long can a society sustainably function at a fixed or slowly reducing size? Could we gracefully transition to earlier modes such as functioning agrarian, hunter-gatherer, or frontier communities? Can those retro communities still enjoy technological benefits developed by their larger forebears? Or do we have to assume war, famine, and post-apocalyptic wasteland? This seems like more of a psychology test than a useful debate. We can establish our various moods and dispositions, but not prognosticate a large-scale future. At a more personal level, can't we live a good life even if we are the last one to turn out the lights? Don't we all die alone, regardless of the number of attending nurses and medical billing?

bootsz 8y ago

> What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy https://steadystate.org/ https://steadystate.org/

zwkrt 8y ago

It's almost like human health and wellness shouldn't rely on the economy!

coliveira 8y ago

> What happens when the population and the economy are in a steady state, where we don't expect things to increase at 2% forever This is a problem that has been studied by every serious economist that looks beyond the existing structure of capitalism. Although we don't know exact shop of the future, the answer is that capitalism as we know, and specially finance, will stop working and we will need a different economic paradigm to organize our lives.