7 ms·

Well that's if you don't increase efficacy which we are well on our way of doing. This doesn't strike me as such a large issue since "the old" are still consumi

Well that's if you don't increase efficacy which we are well on our way of doing. This doesn't strike me as such a large issue since "the old" are still consuming and therefore spending capital. Automation and efficacy increase (through tech) will more then make up for the population discrepancies as long as there is enough capital to warrant the investment.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago
Forget about money for a moment, think of just physical world. The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old. If one young person has to support two old, their quality of life will decline no matter what the fiscal arrangements are. Sure, technology improves efficiency, but not 300%
- danaris 7y ago
  That assumes each person produces only enough for a small, fixed number of people to prosper. And, um...I don't wish to worry you, but efficiency has improved a whole hell of a lot more than 300% over the last 40 years or so. The problem is that the gains have gone almost entirely to the people at the very top of the pyramid.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    That's a bold claim, which industrial process apart from computing and lighting has efficiency improving anywhere near 300%? Gains have been marginal in air travel,, oil extraction, heating, steel, food and concrete production. Many of these are near the physical limits of possible efficiency.
    - danaris 7y ago
      I apologize; I was misremembering the graphs. It's actually not quite a 300% increase: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/15/40-years-of-economic-policy-in-one-chart/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/15/40-years-of-economic... It's just over 250% increase in productivity since 1979, while real wages have risen a fraction of that.
      - imtringued 7y ago
        I can't eat productivity improvements and neither can my parents. I know that this sounds absurd but that is the reality we live in.
        danaris 7y ago
        No, obviously not. But the point is that there is plenty of productivity to go around—the benefits of it just aren't available to most people. So, if we were to reduce the ability of the people at the very top to siphon away 99% of the productivity gains we've seen over the past 40 years, we would have more than enough food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, with enough margin that people could also work shorter hours without losing the ability to provide for everyone. The cost of that is that a very small percentage of the population can no longer have massively extravagant lifestyles.
        manthedudeguy 7y ago
        Think about the progress we'd make bringing that many people out of poverty and into productive lifestyles, creating, spending, researching...
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        That graph is dramatic. I see what you mean, we are talking about economic productivity, which is fair enough.
- diN0bot 7y ago
  some might say that caring for others and being cared for (emotionally, not physically or financially) is the primary measure of quality of life. i miss my grandmother a great deal.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old. The older two, if they didn't have to support the young, e.g. not have babies, or just send them to work on farms at 6 years old... Are the "young" supposed to get raised for free from 0 to 18 or even 0-25 or more in these days, and then coast along, with no responsibility of paying back to society for that?
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    This is not a moral statement, it's a matter of physical difficulty: If you have 4 siblings, supporting your ageing parents is quite easy If you are a single child, supporting two ageing parents can be challenging If you alone had to support 4 ageing people (like someone who decided not to have kids), while also having to meet your work commitments, that would probably be very difficult.
chongli 7y ago
They are consuming, but nowhere near enough to spread the wealth around. And the wealthy vote themselves laws that let them keep more of their unearned wealth. Look at what’s happened to California under prop 13 [1]. What was supposed to protect little old ladies from losing their homes due to rising property taxes has turned into a commercial real estate bonanza. People are making money hand over fist renting rooms at exorbitant prices to young people, and paying next to nothing in property taxes for the privilege. Meanwhile, a young person needs a large six to seven figure income just to afford a home in the Bay Area, and then their property taxes are insanely high, forcing them to subsidize their commercial real estate neighbours. It’s ridiculously unfair. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/california-proposition-13-business-taxes-split-roll https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californ...
- chrisweekly 7y ago
  To be fair, the Bay Area is an anomaly... but IMHO your points are valid.
  - ohazi 7y ago
    The same is true in Los Angeles and San Diego (and basically anywhere that has a meaningful concentration of people who are willing and able to work).
- zepto 7y ago
  Speaking as someone who recently was finally able to buy in the Bay Area, repealing prop 13 would screw everyone in my position and do nothing to make real estate more available. I agree that it is ‘unfair’ but making it more ‘fair’ would just harm all the people who have actually made it work for them. Most people who own property in the Bay Area are not predatory landlords.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    Corrections are part of any economy with a boom/bust cycle. Things are good for you, bad for us now. Repealing P13 would reverse that dynamic. Hopefully we regress to a livable and sustainable mean.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

Forget about money for a moment, think of just physical world. The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old. If one young person has to support two old, their quality of life will decline no matter what the fiscal arrangements are. Sure, technology improves efficiency, but not 300%

danaris 7y ago
That assumes each person produces only enough for a small, fixed number of people to prosper. And, um...I don't wish to worry you, but efficiency has improved a whole hell of a lot more than 300% over the last 40 years or so. The problem is that the gains have gone almost entirely to the people at the very top of the pyramid.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  That's a bold claim, which industrial process apart from computing and lighting has efficiency improving anywhere near 300%? Gains have been marginal in air travel,, oil extraction, heating, steel, food and concrete production. Many of these are near the physical limits of possible efficiency.
  - danaris 7y ago
    I apologize; I was misremembering the graphs. It's actually not quite a 300% increase: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/15/40-years-of-economic-policy-in-one-chart/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/15/40-years-of-economic... It's just over 250% increase in productivity since 1979, while real wages have risen a fraction of that.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      I can't eat productivity improvements and neither can my parents. I know that this sounds absurd but that is the reality we live in.
      - danaris 7y ago
        No, obviously not. But the point is that there is plenty of productivity to go around—the benefits of it just aren't available to most people. So, if we were to reduce the ability of the people at the very top to siphon away 99% of the productivity gains we've seen over the past 40 years, we would have more than enough food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, with enough margin that people could also work shorter hours without losing the ability to provide for everyone. The cost of that is that a very small percentage of the population can no longer have massively extravagant lifestyles.
        manthedudeguy 7y ago
        Think about the progress we'd make bringing that many people out of poverty and into productive lifestyles, creating, spending, researching...
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      That graph is dramatic. I see what you mean, we are talking about economic productivity, which is fair enough.
diN0bot 7y ago
some might say that caring for others and being cared for (emotionally, not physically or financially) is the primary measure of quality of life. i miss my grandmother a great deal.
coldtea 7y ago
>The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old. The older two, if they didn't have to support the young, e.g. not have babies, or just send them to work on farms at 6 years old... Are the "young" supposed to get raised for free from 0 to 18 or even 0-25 or more in these days, and then coast along, with no responsibility of paying back to society for that?
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  This is not a moral statement, it's a matter of physical difficulty: If you have 4 siblings, supporting your ageing parents is quite easy If you are a single child, supporting two ageing parents can be challenging If you alone had to support 4 ageing people (like someone who decided not to have kids), while also having to meet your work commitments, that would probably be very difficult.

chongli 7y ago

They are consuming, but nowhere near enough to spread the wealth around. And the wealthy vote themselves laws that let them keep more of their unearned wealth. Look at what’s happened to California under prop 13 [1]. What was supposed to protect little old ladies from losing their homes due to rising property taxes has turned into a commercial real estate bonanza. People are making money hand over fist renting rooms at exorbitant prices to young people, and paying next to nothing in property taxes for the privilege. Meanwhile, a young person needs a large six to seven figure income just to afford a home in the Bay Area, and then their property taxes are insanely high, forcing them to subsidize their commercial real estate neighbours. It’s ridiculously unfair. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/california-proposition-13-business-taxes-split-roll https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/californ...

chrisweekly 7y ago
To be fair, the Bay Area is an anomaly... but IMHO your points are valid.
- ohazi 7y ago
  The same is true in Los Angeles and San Diego (and basically anywhere that has a meaningful concentration of people who are willing and able to work).
zepto 7y ago
Speaking as someone who recently was finally able to buy in the Bay Area, repealing prop 13 would screw everyone in my position and do nothing to make real estate more available. I agree that it is ‘unfair’ but making it more ‘fair’ would just harm all the people who have actually made it work for them. Most people who own property in the Bay Area are not predatory landlords.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  Corrections are part of any economy with a boom/bust cycle. Things are good for you, bad for us now. Repealing P13 would reverse that dynamic. Hopefully we regress to a livable and sustainable mean.