4 ms·

Capitalism doesn't require for constant population growth. But public pension schemes do. And there are geopolitical advantages to being bigger than your foes.

Capitalism doesn't require for constant population growth. But public pension schemes do. And there are geopolitical advantages to being bigger than your foes. Look at Japan. Japan's population has been on the decline for about 1.5 generations. They still get as much food, shelter, and entertainment as any other developed economy. They have hobbies, travel, discretionary income... The worries there aren't about capitalism failing. Demographic collapse just has a lot of nasty social consequences in general. An inverted pyramid spells pain for future generations.

cs137 4y ago
Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse. I don't think an inverted pyramid is as bad as it sounds. It's a check against ageism and falling wages (there's no longer a horde of hungry young people who want the jobs) and, given how little of the work people do is actually necessary--white-collar jobs are 85% sending passive-aggressive emails--I think society can afford it. It might be the only thing that provides enough value of labor to keep conditions relatively humane.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  By public pension, I mean what we in the US call Social Security. Most developed economies have an equivalent.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse. Taxpayer funded (which is what “public” generally means) pensions are basically the only defined benefit pensions left in the US. I do not know of a single city, county, state, or federal government that has gotten rid of them, especially not for cops.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    “public pensions” usually refers to schemes like social security in the US. “public employee pensions” are a different thing. (But neither is gone, in general or in the US, though more and more government employee positions in the US are relying more on defined contribution retirement plans and less on defined benefit pensions.)
- bell-cot 4y ago
  If the inverted pyramid is in an "old-fashioned" economy and society, where the great majority of adults generally work hard until the last few years of their lives, and families mostly do their own service work, then the inverted pyramid might not be a serious problem. But if you're hoping for something closer to the modern, Western ideal - education until age ~25, work until age ~60, retirement until age ~90 - then the inverted pyramid is going to need at least one of: (1) Armies of imported service workers - to staff all the nursing homes, retirement homes, cruise ships, restaurants, etc. that the huge "top" of that pyramid need / want. (2) Armies of robots so advanced that they can fill the great majority of those jobs. WithOUT requiring an extra army of humans to build, pay for, maintain, run, etc. those service worker robots. (3) Huge changes in medical technology and social expectations, so that most of those service workers are never needed.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Defined benefit pension schemes only require constant population growth because the decision makers want to use the assumption that there will be constant economic growth, in order to make the obligations seem like they cost less. They could easily assume 0% expected return on investment, but that would make it so the cash expenses today would explode, to the same level that they would if they simply paid employees the cash. Which is why politicians like to run on campaigns promising lower taxes, and in order to achieve that, they assume future economic growth so that instead of paying someone $10 today, the government can pay $1, and rely on economic growth to provide the other $9 (assuming purchasing power of the currency remains the same, which it will not).
- bombcar 4y ago
  Defined benefit would work fine if the benefit defined was "comfortable living space, slop kitchen, basic healthcare, and a golf course" - as those can be provided at some fraction of the requirements for a defined money benefit pension.
imtringued 4y ago
They have zero percent interest rates much longer than anyone else. If anything they are pretty much as close to ending capitalism as it gets.

cs137 4y ago

Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse. I don't think an inverted pyramid is as bad as it sounds. It's a check against ageism and falling wages (there's no longer a horde of hungry young people who want the jobs) and, given how little of the work people do is actually necessary--white-collar jobs are 85% sending passive-aggressive emails--I think society can afford it. It might be the only thing that provides enough value of labor to keep conditions relatively humane.

missedthecue 4y ago
By public pension, I mean what we in the US call Social Security. Most developed economies have an equivalent.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Public pensions are pretty much gone these days, for better or worse. Taxpayer funded (which is what “public” generally means) pensions are basically the only defined benefit pensions left in the US. I do not know of a single city, county, state, or federal government that has gotten rid of them, especially not for cops.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  “public pensions” usually refers to schemes like social security in the US. “public employee pensions” are a different thing. (But neither is gone, in general or in the US, though more and more government employee positions in the US are relying more on defined contribution retirement plans and less on defined benefit pensions.)
bell-cot 4y ago
If the inverted pyramid is in an "old-fashioned" economy and society, where the great majority of adults generally work hard until the last few years of their lives, and families mostly do their own service work, then the inverted pyramid might not be a serious problem. But if you're hoping for something closer to the modern, Western ideal - education until age ~25, work until age ~60, retirement until age ~90 - then the inverted pyramid is going to need at least one of: (1) Armies of imported service workers - to staff all the nursing homes, retirement homes, cruise ships, restaurants, etc. that the huge "top" of that pyramid need / want. (2) Armies of robots so advanced that they can fill the great majority of those jobs. WithOUT requiring an extra army of humans to build, pay for, maintain, run, etc. those service worker robots. (3) Huge changes in medical technology and social expectations, so that most of those service workers are never needed.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Defined benefit pension schemes only require constant population growth because the decision makers want to use the assumption that there will be constant economic growth, in order to make the obligations seem like they cost less. They could easily assume 0% expected return on investment, but that would make it so the cash expenses today would explode, to the same level that they would if they simply paid employees the cash. Which is why politicians like to run on campaigns promising lower taxes, and in order to achieve that, they assume future economic growth so that instead of paying someone $10 today, the government can pay $1, and rely on economic growth to provide the other $9 (assuming purchasing power of the currency remains the same, which it will not).

bombcar 4y ago
Defined benefit would work fine if the benefit defined was "comfortable living space, slop kitchen, basic healthcare, and a golf course" - as those can be provided at some fraction of the requirements for a defined money benefit pension.

imtringued 4y ago

They have zero percent interest rates much longer than anyone else. If anything they are pretty much as close to ending capitalism as it gets.