4 ms·

I'm going to hell for this but could a virus that removes people past the retirement age be actually beneficial to an economy? I can think of a few mechanisms:

I'm going to hell for this but could a virus that removes people past the retirement age be actually beneficial to an economy? I can think of a few mechanisms: 1. Reduced draw from social security and pensions. 2. Less long term medical costs. 3. Increases housing supply. I am not advocating for removing old people from the economy. I am just thinking of some economic consequences of this terrible pandemic.

xiphias2 6y ago
This may be true for the flu, but the coronavirus has much more potential to overload the hospital system, and as it would kill an order of magnitude more people, the economy has to be stopped to save them.
brutusborn 6y ago
I can't be sure, but I imagine this would be offset by the productive segment of the older population who die from the virus. Older workers are valuable because often they have the widest experience and are best able to train others.
- fasteddie31003 6y ago
  I said retired people. Meaning, they don't work anymore.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > they don't work anymore. I see you haven't met my dad.
  - brutusborn 6y ago
    Ah, I misread it. Interesting concept but the point is sort of moot since a virus can't specifically target people who dont work. Sure, a virus can be more likely to be fatal in older people, but there are still a lot of older people who work, and enough unproductive young people that i still think it would be a net negative.
  - ggcdn 6y ago
    The virus doesn’t make this distinction. You lose both.
dehrmann 6y ago
> I'm going to hell for this I'll take it a step further. Animals have coexisted with nasty viruses for a long time, and lots of animals are still susceptible to them. Are threats that constantly cull the population beneficial to the strength of the species? Are there viruses some species are genetically immune to because the virus killed indiscriminately, while other viruses provided a net benefit?
Leherenn 6y ago
If they had just disappeared overnight probably, but on our case the cost of the pandemic is going to dwarf whatever you might have gained.

xiphias2 6y ago

This may be true for the flu, but the coronavirus has much more potential to overload the hospital system, and as it would kill an order of magnitude more people, the economy has to be stopped to save them.

brutusborn 6y ago

I can't be sure, but I imagine this would be offset by the productive segment of the older population who die from the virus. Older workers are valuable because often they have the widest experience and are best able to train others.

fasteddie31003 6y ago
I said retired people. Meaning, they don't work anymore.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > they don't work anymore. I see you haven't met my dad.
- brutusborn 6y ago
  Ah, I misread it. Interesting concept but the point is sort of moot since a virus can't specifically target people who dont work. Sure, a virus can be more likely to be fatal in older people, but there are still a lot of older people who work, and enough unproductive young people that i still think it would be a net negative.
- ggcdn 6y ago
  The virus doesn’t make this distinction. You lose both.

dehrmann 6y ago

> I'm going to hell for this I'll take it a step further. Animals have coexisted with nasty viruses for a long time, and lots of animals are still susceptible to them. Are threats that constantly cull the population beneficial to the strength of the species? Are there viruses some species are genetically immune to because the virus killed indiscriminately, while other viruses provided a net benefit?

Leherenn 6y ago

If they had just disappeared overnight probably, but on our case the cost of the pandemic is going to dwarf whatever you might have gained.