4 ms·
> Most people seem to agree with this statement, which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme (see my point about hysteresis above). We've defined the goalp
by dev_dull 7y ago
> Most people seem to agree with this statement, which is the very definition of a pyramid scheme (see my point about hysteresis above). We've defined the goalposts such that this statement is in some sense tautologically true, but it leaves me with a profound sense of "so what?"
For countries with any kind of social / welfare programs, there is no option available but to grow population. Even here in the USA programs like social security are only solvent to 2037[1]. Many state programs (such as public pensions) are in way worse positions...
1. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html
- triceratops 7y agoWhy? Productivity continues to increase, regardless of population increasing. It's like saying we can do more with less everywhere, except when it comes to taking care of people and the elderly.
- paulajohnson 7y agoTaking care of the elderly is a labour intensive business. Automation doesn't clean an old person's glasses (real life example), make their bed or cook their meals.
- tyscorp 7y agoNot yet.
- triceratops 7y agoAutomation doesn't need to do any of those things (even though it eventually could). It could simply make other industries so cheap and efficient that more labor flows into elder care.
- buboard 7y agoincreased demand will drive more automation in that sector self driving cars may be limited but they will be a great solution for the elderly
- einpoklum 7y agoThe labor intensiveness is not binary. Specifically, if there are socialized "assisted living" facilities, or even in-the-community caregiver visitation, then the amount of caregiving work-hours per day per elderly person is X. If the only possible arrangement is getting a live-in personal care-giver, then that figures is 2X or 3X (or some factor, I don't have the figures); and most people probably just don't get care.
- Paperweight 7y agoUltrasonic cleaners, man!
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mdorazio 7y agoI don't think that actually holds. I hate to trot out the typical example, but Norway seems to be doing pretty well on the social welfare side with a fertility rate much lower than that of the US. They just have very different priorities than the US does in terms of taxation, wealth distribution, and of course deficit spending vs. creating a sovereign wealth fund. I don't see any reason why the US couldn't maintain social welfare programs in a decreasing population scenario provided the decrease is gradual, productivity rises as fast as the population goes down, and we actually taxed people appropriately and got our expenditure priorities under control.
- krapht 7y agoNorway is also very homogeneous. We are more willing to be generous to those related to us; and I'm not talking just about race, but also culture, values, and ideology. In all these respects, the United States is far more diverse. So I guess I agree with you, but I don't think those conditions can be replicated here.
- jelliclesfarm 7y agoI don’t know why you were downvoted. You are right. I have found this to be true in Japan too. Homogenous populace = low conflict.
- dev_dull 7y agoNorway’s top personal tax rate is similar to the US (39%, which is less than what some people pay in high cost of living states here). The difference, as I’m sure you already know, is state oil revenue, and that can’t last forever even with sovereign wealth funds.
- pnako 7y agoWhy not? You could have a welfare system that redistributes any excess return from the fund above long-run inflation rate, and it would be sustainable.
- pnako 7y ago>with any kind No. That's obviously the case for countries whose welfare system has been designed as a pyramid system. But saying that any kind of welfare is necessarily unsustainable is as absurd as saying that spending on video games or Ethernet cables is necessarily unsustainable.