3 ms·

That's a good thing, there are too many people in the world already. Funny how values change when you actually have to deal with the consequences of your action

That's a good thing, there are too many people in the world already. Funny how values change when you actually have to deal with the consequences of your actions, though.

lm28469 7y ago
Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning, especially with all these "XX% of the population live pay-check to pay-check" articles. Up until now the whole system was relying on continuous growth to take care of the elderly (both physically and financially). It's a good thing in the long term, but it might suck big time short term wise.
- Wellshit 7y ago
  By importing tax payers
- skybrian 7y ago
  I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? At the same time, automation will result in lower demand. Hard to say which trend is more important. Combined, I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    > I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? I believe the concern is that a lot of those people who are living paycheque to paycheque are getting to / are at retiring age - we need social safety nets to support these people, and we have a whole lot less people working to afford it.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    When you have a 4:1 worker:retired ratio the burden on workers is much lighter than when you have a 1:1 ratio. See public retirement funds as a big ponzi scheme, it only works if people getting in > people cashing out. Living pay checks to pay checks means that you have 0 margin and will l00% rely on society to survive. > Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? I don't think it's that simple. It's a societal / economical problem on a world scale, not an economy 101 course, I don't think anyone can predict where we're going but it'll definitely require some major changes. > At the same time, automation will "Automation will ..." has been used for 60+ years. If all these prophets were right we'd be working 3 hours a day by now. As long as we (collectively) are not ok with people not working, all automation does is moving people from shitty jobs to other shitty jobs (mostly in the service industry).
    - skybrian 7y ago
      I see a combination of concern for the elderly (who will take care of them) and contempt for the work required (these are shitty jobs, aren't they)? I don't particularly want to do that work either, so I'm certainly not immune to this criticism. But I think we might need to get over that. Since it's actually pretty important, this work should be respected and better paid, and it's actually a good thing if other work can be automated and more people move into taking care of others.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? ... I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers. Who's going to pay for the healthcare workers, if the old people don't have any savings or assets to pay them? If your answer is to tax the workers, that system will collapse if there's a 1:1 ratio of workers to retired people.
- magduf 7y ago
  >Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning No problem, we'll just invent robots to take care of the elderly.

That's a good thing, there are too many people in the world already. Funny how values change when you actually have to deal with the consequences of your actions, though.

lm28469 7y ago

Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning, especially with all these "XX% of the population live pay-check to pay-check" articles. Up until now the whole system was relying on continuous growth to take care of the elderly (both physically and financially). It's a good thing in the long term, but it might suck big time short term wise.

Wellshit 7y ago
By importing tax payers
skybrian 7y ago
I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? At the same time, automation will result in lower demand. Hard to say which trend is more important. Combined, I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? I believe the concern is that a lot of those people who are living paycheque to paycheque are getting to / are at retiring age - we need social safety nets to support these people, and we have a whole lot less people working to afford it.
- lm28469 7y ago
  When you have a 4:1 worker:retired ratio the burden on workers is much lighter than when you have a 1:1 ratio. See public retirement funds as a big ponzi scheme, it only works if people getting in > people cashing out. Living pay checks to pay checks means that you have 0 margin and will l00% rely on society to survive. > Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? I don't think it's that simple. It's a societal / economical problem on a world scale, not an economy 101 course, I don't think anyone can predict where we're going but it'll definitely require some major changes. > At the same time, automation will "Automation will ..." has been used for 60+ years. If all these prophets were right we'd be working 3 hours a day by now. As long as we (collectively) are not ok with people not working, all automation does is moving people from shitty jobs to other shitty jobs (mostly in the service industry).
  - skybrian 7y ago
    I see a combination of concern for the elderly (who will take care of them) and contempt for the work required (these are shitty jobs, aren't they)? I don't particularly want to do that work either, so I'm certainly not immune to this criticism. But I think we might need to get over that. Since it's actually pretty important, this work should be respected and better paid, and it's actually a good thing if other work can be automated and more people move into taking care of others.
- magduf 7y ago
  >I'm confused by your reference to people who live paycheck to paycheck. Shouldn't lower supply and higher demand for workers result in higher wages? ... I would expect a lot fewer truck drivers and more healthcare workers. Who's going to pay for the healthcare workers, if the old people don't have any savings or assets to pay them? If your answer is to tax the workers, that system will collapse if there's a 1:1 ratio of workers to retired people.
magduf 7y ago
>Let's see how we handle going from a 4+:1 working:retired ratio to something closer to 1:1 though. It's very concerning No problem, we'll just invent robots to take care of the elderly.