4 ms·

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess

I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations. I could just as easily see this having the opposite economic effect: reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid.

inglor_cz 5y ago
This. Economic consequences do not necessarily track our moral preferences.
watwut 5y ago
The excess death were among active demographics too. And in addition, the long term covid was affecting active demographics too. And also, the parents who had to drop out of workforce due to childcare being much more difficult were also active demographic too.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >The excess death were among active demographics too. In what proportion?
AYBABTME 5y ago
> caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations I'm not sure that's true. Many civilizations, up to and including now, have the cultural practice of the weak and elderly destroying themselves (or being destroyed) when they become a burden on their relative/society. The most obvious example being the concept of east asian (Korean/Japanese) elders "going to the mountain to die".
- omginternets 5y ago
  This is absurd. Eastern civilizations most certainly care for their weak, sick and elderly. Removing oneself from society by going up the proverbial mountain does not contradict this. You have to look very hard for a successful civilization that doesn't do this. Sparta, perhaps? (This is also not really the point of the original comment.)
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    It's not the point but I just thought it's useful to bring up. I disagree with you about your statement that civilizations must have this property (a pillar) you claim they have. All kind of civilizations didn't/don't care anywhere near the way it's done in judeo-christian derived civilizations, and they were/are still civilizations. If I were you, I'd be open to the idea that this is perhaps not an universal truth as you make it out to be. In fact this topic is specifically brought up quite early in "Our Oriental Heritage, The Story of Civilization, Volume 1" by Will Durant.
  - recuter 5y ago
    South Korea’s Elderly Poverty Rate Highest in OECD (44%)
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations Really? The elderly may not be likely to work, but they still consume (they consume lots of medical services in proportion to their numbers, for instance.) > reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid. “the burden on the state for such things as ... Medicaid” is a chunk of economic activity. With taxes the same and that spending gone, alone, the economy shrinks.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelBurge 5y ago
  "They consume medical care" sounds a lot like the broken window fallacy: If you smash a bunch of windows, you're increasing GDP and creating jobs when they get repaired. To a ruthless cold-blooded optimizer, deleting the elderly should be good for the economy because you save on their maintenance costs and their resources get redistributed to more active investors. This might decrease GDP, but that only reflects on GDP being a problematic metric. I guess it's true that smashing windows or providing medical care to the elderly would increase the "size of the economy", because it adds entries to the implicit "market's bid/ask order book". And you could measure the size of the economy by the size of that data structure.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > To a ruthless cold-blooded optimizer, deleting the elderly should be good for the economy because you save on their maintenance costs and their resources get redistributed to more active investors. This might decrease GDP Right, and the upthread discussion was about GDP, not some abstract unspecified quality of the economy.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      GDP per capita would be up, the actual best metric for quality of life (mostly, ignoring military defense and informal trade more likely in developing countries)
wcfields 5y ago
> economically active populations I've seen this thrown about and have to take this with a grain of salt because even the infirmed/elderly/retired are still part of the economy. They consume food and resources, albeit they aren't out buying durable goods and new cars, but they are paying rent/mortgage in their retirement communities, eating food, buying CPGs* (some of which fully rely on an older population). I'll take the example of my two relatives that died from COVID, neither had underlying conditions: One was a 65 yo former airline mechanic on the verge of retirement with a McMansion in Houston area, he spent a lot of money keeping up that lifestyle, and when he passed my aunt moved back to a small town, and downsized, considerably shrinking her spending. They had planned to spend the next 10 years in an RV that is no longer going to happen. The other is my 46 yo cousin with 4 kids and was a seven figure earner in sales living in Kansas City area. Again, huge amount of spend and now his wife is getting by with a massively reduced house and budget. * Did the hard candy industry take a nose-dive? Should I be shorting Werther's Original stock?
colechristensen 5y ago
3/4 of the million US deaths attributed to COVID-19 were age ~64 and above. Only 1 in 20 deaths attributed to COVID-19 were between 0 and ~49. Abstract models of "productivity" vs age peak close to where the covid death hockey stick turns upwards. The 50-60 age bracket is where the big losses are, losing 100k-200k people near their prime and 5-15 years of remaining economic contributions. Younger populations saw much fewer losses, older populations mostly left the workforce.
gilbetron 5y ago
A couple of things. First, it isn't just deaths, a lot of people were hospitalized and/or have long-term effects because of contracting Covid. This tends to be in younger populations (although not young), because older populations tend to be the ones that just die. Second, a lot of people retired well before they usually would to stay out of the path of covid or covid-induced craziness. This is a big part of the school bus driver shortage, for instance. A lot of older people drove school buses for a bit of extra cash, and to be around kids. Wisely, a lot of them decided to stop doing that, and might not come back for a while. So it isn't just deaths that are the reason for a reduced working population, although that has an impact, too.

inglor_cz 5y ago

This. Economic consequences do not necessarily track our moral preferences.

watwut 5y ago

The excess death were among active demographics too. And in addition, the long term covid was affecting active demographics too. And also, the parents who had to drop out of workforce due to childcare being much more difficult were also active demographic too.

omginternets 5y ago
>The excess death were among active demographics too. In what proportion?

AYBABTME 5y ago

> caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations I'm not sure that's true. Many civilizations, up to and including now, have the cultural practice of the weak and elderly destroying themselves (or being destroyed) when they become a burden on their relative/society. The most obvious example being the concept of east asian (Korean/Japanese) elders "going to the mountain to die".

omginternets 5y ago
This is absurd. Eastern civilizations most certainly care for their weak, sick and elderly. Removing oneself from society by going up the proverbial mountain does not contradict this. You have to look very hard for a successful civilization that doesn't do this. Sparta, perhaps? (This is also not really the point of the original comment.)
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  It's not the point but I just thought it's useful to bring up. I disagree with you about your statement that civilizations must have this property (a pillar) you claim they have. All kind of civilizations didn't/don't care anywhere near the way it's done in judeo-christian derived civilizations, and they were/are still civilizations. If I were you, I'd be open to the idea that this is perhaps not an universal truth as you make it out to be. In fact this topic is specifically brought up quite early in "Our Oriental Heritage, The Story of Civilization, Volume 1" by Will Durant.
- recuter 5y ago
  South Korea’s Elderly Poverty Rate Highest in OECD (44%)

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I really don’t want to sound calloused because caring for the weak and the elderly is a pillar of civilizations, but my impression was that the bulk of “excess deaths” were not among the most economically active populations Really? The elderly may not be likely to work, but they still consume (they consume lots of medical services in proportion to their numbers, for instance.) > reducing the burden on the state for such things as retirement and Medicaid. “the burden on the state for such things as ... Medicaid” is a chunk of economic activity. With taxes the same and that spending gone, alone, the economy shrinks.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MichaelBurge 5y ago
"They consume medical care" sounds a lot like the broken window fallacy: If you smash a bunch of windows, you're increasing GDP and creating jobs when they get repaired. To a ruthless cold-blooded optimizer, deleting the elderly should be good for the economy because you save on their maintenance costs and their resources get redistributed to more active investors. This might decrease GDP, but that only reflects on GDP being a problematic metric. I guess it's true that smashing windows or providing medical care to the elderly would increase the "size of the economy", because it adds entries to the implicit "market's bid/ask order book". And you could measure the size of the economy by the size of that data structure.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > To a ruthless cold-blooded optimizer, deleting the elderly should be good for the economy because you save on their maintenance costs and their resources get redistributed to more active investors. This might decrease GDP Right, and the upthread discussion was about GDP, not some abstract unspecified quality of the economy.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    GDP per capita would be up, the actual best metric for quality of life (mostly, ignoring military defense and informal trade more likely in developing countries)

wcfields 5y ago

> economically active populations I've seen this thrown about and have to take this with a grain of salt because even the infirmed/elderly/retired are still part of the economy. They consume food and resources, albeit they aren't out buying durable goods and new cars, but they are paying rent/mortgage in their retirement communities, eating food, buying CPGs* (some of which fully rely on an older population). I'll take the example of my two relatives that died from COVID, neither had underlying conditions: One was a 65 yo former airline mechanic on the verge of retirement with a McMansion in Houston area, he spent a lot of money keeping up that lifestyle, and when he passed my aunt moved back to a small town, and downsized, considerably shrinking her spending. They had planned to spend the next 10 years in an RV that is no longer going to happen. The other is my 46 yo cousin with 4 kids and was a seven figure earner in sales living in Kansas City area. Again, huge amount of spend and now his wife is getting by with a massively reduced house and budget. * Did the hard candy industry take a nose-dive? Should I be shorting Werther's Original stock?

colechristensen 5y ago

3/4 of the million US deaths attributed to COVID-19 were age ~64 and above. Only 1 in 20 deaths attributed to COVID-19 were between 0 and ~49. Abstract models of "productivity" vs age peak close to where the covid death hockey stick turns upwards. The 50-60 age bracket is where the big losses are, losing 100k-200k people near their prime and 5-15 years of remaining economic contributions. Younger populations saw much fewer losses, older populations mostly left the workforce.

gilbetron 5y ago

A couple of things. First, it isn't just deaths, a lot of people were hospitalized and/or have long-term effects because of contracting Covid. This tends to be in younger populations (although not young), because older populations tend to be the ones that just die. Second, a lot of people retired well before they usually would to stay out of the path of covid or covid-induced craziness. This is a big part of the school bus driver shortage, for instance. A lot of older people drove school buses for a bit of extra cash, and to be around kids. Wisely, a lot of them decided to stop doing that, and might not come back for a while. So it isn't just deaths that are the reason for a reduced working population, although that has an impact, too.