3 ms·

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 ach

by njepa 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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?

by njepa 7y ago

orthecreedence 7y 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 7y 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?