8 ms·

> it creates real demographics problems in that few young people need to support many old people I think this problem is overrated, because at the same time th

> it creates real demographics problems in that few young people need to support many old people I think this problem is overrated, because at the same time they need to support many less children, youth and young adults. In other words, the ratio `adult workforce` vs. (`retired` + `children` + `in education`) is decreasing only very slowly. And we need a price tag for each of these elements to better assess its impact: How expensive is education and child care per person per year compared to pensions per person per year? The figure that really matters for the future is purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. This figure has been rising steadily in most industrialized countries for most of the years. There are no signs that this will change, even if birth rates continue to decline. This means that, regardless the demographic trend, more goods and services are available to everyone on average every year. The real problem is to stop the trend that only part of society benefits from economic growth.

xenocratus 5y ago
Just chiming in to say that money isn't the only problem. You also need to restructure your healthcare system, for example, to account for more geriatrics and less pediatrics. We'd also need more carers, but presumably some proportion of teachers and babysitters could swap to that. But if you think about it, childcare is now a part-time job for many parents working other full-time jobs in engineering, law, accounting etc. Would they be caring for their elderly parents instead, to the same degree, or would we need a lot more professional carers for it? Anyway, my point is that it's more complex than just comparing cash for this vs cash for that, we'll have to coordinate broad policies for a change like this. I think this is already happening in the West, but rather slowly.
jltsiren 5y ago
Averages are often misleading. Another set of key figures is the distribution of created value between earned income, capital income, and welfare payments. When the number of retirees grows relative to the size of the workforce, there is a need to increase the share of capital income and/or welfare payments, because a larger fraction of people depends on them. In reality, the reverse is more likely to happen. The share of earned income is likely to increase due to labor shortage. Retirees will then be worse off, regardless of whether they depend on social security payments or savings.

xenocratus 5y ago

Just chiming in to say that money isn't the only problem. You also need to restructure your healthcare system, for example, to account for more geriatrics and less pediatrics. We'd also need more carers, but presumably some proportion of teachers and babysitters could swap to that. But if you think about it, childcare is now a part-time job for many parents working other full-time jobs in engineering, law, accounting etc. Would they be caring for their elderly parents instead, to the same degree, or would we need a lot more professional carers for it? Anyway, my point is that it's more complex than just comparing cash for this vs cash for that, we'll have to coordinate broad policies for a change like this. I think this is already happening in the West, but rather slowly.

jltsiren 5y ago

Averages are often misleading. Another set of key figures is the distribution of created value between earned income, capital income, and welfare payments. When the number of retirees grows relative to the size of the workforce, there is a need to increase the share of capital income and/or welfare payments, because a larger fraction of people depends on them. In reality, the reverse is more likely to happen. The share of earned income is likely to increase due to labor shortage. Retirees will then be worse off, regardless of whether they depend on social security payments or savings.