3 ms·

The earth resources are stressed beyond the breaking point with the current population. A declining population is not a problem - except to handwringing econom

The earth resources are stressed beyond the breaking point with the current population. A declining population is not a problem - except to handwringing economists. From a human perspective, we need to only have workers to fulfill the production needs of society. Paying for retirees is solvable by simply aggressively taxing the billionaires. In the US, having a kid or kids is an unaffordable luxury item for couples trying to survive in today's economy. I know the only way, I can afford my kids is that I got lucky with the stock market.

moonraker 7y ago
Earth's resources are strained, yes. However, taxing billionaires as you propose wouldn't necessarily pay for all the entitlement spending that the elderly require. A solution to both of these problems is increasing total factor productivity (aka doing more with less). The big rise in living standards during the post-war boom was largely a result of a huge increase in total factor productivity. This has petered out since the 1970s and a lot of the 'zero-sum' mentality/nostalgia for a 'Great America'/fighting over a fixed economic pie in the US today is because we haven't been increasing productivity (i.e. there hasn't been enough technological innovation and disruption) at a fast enough rate.
- moonraker 7y ago
  Cheatsheet source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite... For the adventurous/curious: https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf [PDF] https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781107036161_frontmatter.pdf https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781... [PDF]
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  I don't think Earth's resources are strained. I think we're approaching capacity, especially in the oil industry, but so much of the food we produce is thrown away.
ta0987 7y ago
Paying for retirees is solvable by simply aggressively taxing the billionaires. You can't eat money. The problem is not financial, it is economic. Ignoring the few durable things that can be stockpiled, the money retirees spend, whether it comes from savings or taxes can only be spent on goods and services produced at the time the money is spent, by the labor force available then. The smaller this labor force, the higher the wages, the less purchasing power money has. Retirement saving becomes a positional good, it's not enough to save enough, you have to save more than the other retirees, because you're all competing for the same scarce resource: labor. If that doesn't make sense, try thinking about it from a purely physical point of view. Retirees need physical goods and personal services (e.g. nursing). Both of these require humans to produce. The fewer producing people there are (young and middle age adults), compared to consuming people (retirees) the less there is per person, regardless of who you tax or how.
- nradov 7y ago
  We kind of can eat money. Agriculture is already highly automated, and will become even more so as labor costs increase. For example strawberries are currently picked by hand because the fruit is so fragile, but picking robots are in advanced stages of development and will probably be widely deployed within a few decades. A reduced supply of younger workers will also tend to increase retirement ages and reduce age discrimination. For example, a healthy 75 year old can still do a lot of nursing tasks. He might no longer be physically capable of lifting a bedridden patient but he can administer medications, record vital signs, change dressings, etc.
  - ta0987 7y ago
    I mean, sure, kind of. But indirectly. We can eat improved technology which we might be able to buy some of with money. increase retirement ages Yeah, that's one of the negative consequences of the demographic collapse. Not that old people who can still work are owed a vacation funded by the young, but the world isn't exactly fair in handing out pain, and not everyone who can't retire will be deserving of not being able to retire. reduce age discrimination Maybe. Old people too broke to retire don't have tremendous leverage in the labor market, and historically market forces don't tend to fix discrimination, see, e.g. Blacks in the US.
solveforx 7y ago
> The earth resources are stressed beyond the breaking point with the current population. Suppose you are right about this. Then it follows, you have to make some cases like below. 1. Largest population growth comes from the third world countries in Africa, Asia and Central and South America. How should we reduce the population growth in these countries? 2. There's a large influx of immigration into the first world countries where the immigrants resources usage will likely increase by a lot. How should we reduce the immigration into the first world countries from the third world?

moonraker 7y ago

Earth's resources are strained, yes. However, taxing billionaires as you propose wouldn't necessarily pay for all the entitlement spending that the elderly require. A solution to both of these problems is increasing total factor productivity (aka doing more with less). The big rise in living standards during the post-war boom was largely a result of a huge increase in total factor productivity. This has petered out since the 1970s and a lot of the 'zero-sum' mentality/nostalgia for a 'Great America'/fighting over a fixed economic pie in the US today is because we haven't been increasing productivity (i.e. there hasn't been enough technological innovation and disruption) at a fast enough rate.

moonraker 7y ago
Cheatsheet source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_factor_productivity#cite... For the adventurous/curious: https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm https://www.bls.gov/dpr/faqs.htm http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Warr.pdf [PDF] https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781107036161_frontmatter.pdf https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/36161/frontmatter/9781... [PDF]
cameronbrown 7y ago
I don't think Earth's resources are strained. I think we're approaching capacity, especially in the oil industry, but so much of the food we produce is thrown away.

ta0987 7y ago

Paying for retirees is solvable by simply aggressively taxing the billionaires. You can't eat money. The problem is not financial, it is economic. Ignoring the few durable things that can be stockpiled, the money retirees spend, whether it comes from savings or taxes can only be spent on goods and services produced at the time the money is spent, by the labor force available then. The smaller this labor force, the higher the wages, the less purchasing power money has. Retirement saving becomes a positional good, it's not enough to save enough, you have to save more than the other retirees, because you're all competing for the same scarce resource: labor. If that doesn't make sense, try thinking about it from a purely physical point of view. Retirees need physical goods and personal services (e.g. nursing). Both of these require humans to produce. The fewer producing people there are (young and middle age adults), compared to consuming people (retirees) the less there is per person, regardless of who you tax or how.

nradov 7y ago
We kind of can eat money. Agriculture is already highly automated, and will become even more so as labor costs increase. For example strawberries are currently picked by hand because the fruit is so fragile, but picking robots are in advanced stages of development and will probably be widely deployed within a few decades. A reduced supply of younger workers will also tend to increase retirement ages and reduce age discrimination. For example, a healthy 75 year old can still do a lot of nursing tasks. He might no longer be physically capable of lifting a bedridden patient but he can administer medications, record vital signs, change dressings, etc.
- ta0987 7y ago
  I mean, sure, kind of. But indirectly. We can eat improved technology which we might be able to buy some of with money. increase retirement ages Yeah, that's one of the negative consequences of the demographic collapse. Not that old people who can still work are owed a vacation funded by the young, but the world isn't exactly fair in handing out pain, and not everyone who can't retire will be deserving of not being able to retire. reduce age discrimination Maybe. Old people too broke to retire don't have tremendous leverage in the labor market, and historically market forces don't tend to fix discrimination, see, e.g. Blacks in the US.

solveforx 7y ago

> The earth resources are stressed beyond the breaking point with the current population. Suppose you are right about this. Then it follows, you have to make some cases like below. 1. Largest population growth comes from the third world countries in Africa, Asia and Central and South America. How should we reduce the population growth in these countries? 2. There's a large influx of immigration into the first world countries where the immigrants resources usage will likely increase by a lot. How should we reduce the immigration into the first world countries from the third world?