If the young people's contributions can be largely replaced (or rather, supplemented to the necessary aggregate contribution) by technology, does it really matt

If the young people's contributions can be largely replaced (or rather, supplemented to the necessary aggregate contribution) by technology, does it really matter? There'd be no question of a ponzi scheme. You can sort of already see it happening. Productivity is greater than ever. But wages have decoupled from productivity, because it's not human labour, but rather technological inputs that have become the drivers of productivity. I won't sit here and predict that we'll have healthcare, food & beverage and cleaning robots within a decade and we'll only have leisure left. But we're definitely moving in many small ways to singular superpowered humans, who use tech, that can replace entire shifts of employees. Take machines like these: https://www.tennantco.com/content/dam/tennant/tennantco/products/machines/scrubber%20walk-behinds/t600-t600e/images/t600e-orbital-env-hospital.jpg https://www.tennantco.com/content/dam/tennant/tennantco/prod... Replacing half a dozen people doing the same manually. I mean who am I kidding, there's a billion examples like this. Yes, we still have to do our laundry clean, but we have washing machines that do 95% of the work. We still have to drive our busses, but 95% of bus ticket sales are now automated. At some point we'll probably get to that last 5%, too. I'm pretty confident that the demographic age inversion will not be as catastrophic as a ponzi scheme falling apart. Because we the productivity of young (and hell, old) people has a technology multiplier that's ever increasing.