3 ms·

>the entire welfare system is in real trouble unless the proportion of young people isn't inflated somehow >The generation born in the '50s and '60s is retirin

>the entire welfare system is in real trouble unless the proportion of young people isn't inflated somehow >The generation born in the '50s and '60s is retiring now, and it's much larger than subsequent generations. Retirement age is 67. Their healthcare and pension is paid for by the working population, who hope the next generation will pass on the torch. Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? Additionally, the article states that many of these immigrant are themselves using the welfare system. Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? I don't think this can be explained from an economic perspective. I think the aging population simply acted as an allowing factor that made the discussion viable politically. But I think ultimately it happened as part of liberal immigration ideology itself. From that standpoint, the immigration policy is still largely a success. If all life is equal and everyone deserves the human rights, then from that prospective, even if the policy has issues, those issues do not outweigh the total net gain of humanity. Even if it comes at a cost for some people. >But the other option isn't pretty either. Can you explain what the other option is and why you think it would be pretty?

Arrath 4y ago
> Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? "Replace" certainly seems like loaded language. I believe the intent is to bolster the younger cohorts to try to avoid too heavy a generational imbalance.
- njdvndsjkvn 4y ago
  perhaps that was the wrong word to use. I used the word native and replace in terms of demographic tendencies. If the natural tendency of the Swedish population is to decline, then adding more people to the population would be very counterintuitive. What I mean is that if the Swedish population is declining then it should be left to reach the right population and let the demographics "solve itself" rather than to continually go in the opposite direction. For example we wouldn't try to increase the birth rate native population of Sweden either as that is simply trying to go back to a demographic situation which is not sustainable.
marginalia_nu 4y ago
> Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? Additionally, the article states that many of these immigrant are themselves using the welfare system. Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? I don't think this can be explained from an economic perspective. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, I'm suggesting it's an idea. > Can you explain what the other option is and why you think it would be pretty? One other option is to go the route of Italy or Greece, run the welfare system at a massive imbalance, and make up for it with public debt. The other options are all some form of breach of the social contract. Either increasing the burden on the working age demographic past what they'll accept, or the eventual bankruptcy of the pension and healthcare system. Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned.
- njdvndsjkvn 4y ago
  >The other options are all some form of breach of the social contract The thing is a social contract that can't actually exist doesn't matter. If we all agree to not work but still receive benefits we haven't made a meaningful social contract. Breaching that contract is probably the best thing to do. Also, its difficult to evaluate exactly what the contract is here: is it that we all agree to a welfare state (roughly speaking) or is it that in the event that it is possible to have a welfare state then we will have it? I think the latter is more reasonable. >Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned. The way I see it the point you're making here is that since they put in, they deserve to take out, as their input was when the system was still working and the contract thus in place. And that's true to a degree, but people implicitly acknowledge of and take a risk when they contribute to these systems. Did anyone think that in the event of a massive famine (for an extreme example) that they will magically be paid back on their contribution? The decline of the working population is maybe not something they thought about, but it comes implicitly as part of a general acknowledgement that a given system only exists withing a certain interval of environments. All this said, you didn't explicitly state that you believe this contract should be upheld at all costs, but that seems to be the only case where that point would be relevant in the first place.
gopher_space 4y ago
> Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? A timely subject now, but I'll always remember Queen Elizabeth pitching austerity to the British public while sitting in front of a solid gold piano.

Arrath 4y ago

> Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? "Replace" certainly seems like loaded language. I believe the intent is to bolster the younger cohorts to try to avoid too heavy a generational imbalance.

njdvndsjkvn 4y ago
perhaps that was the wrong word to use. I used the word native and replace in terms of demographic tendencies. If the natural tendency of the Swedish population is to decline, then adding more people to the population would be very counterintuitive. What I mean is that if the Swedish population is declining then it should be left to reach the right population and let the demographics "solve itself" rather than to continually go in the opposite direction. For example we wouldn't try to increase the birth rate native population of Sweden either as that is simply trying to go back to a demographic situation which is not sustainable.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

> Are you suggesting it is a good idea to replace the native population to support the Swedish welfare system? Additionally, the article states that many of these immigrant are themselves using the welfare system. Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? I don't think this can be explained from an economic perspective. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, I'm suggesting it's an idea. > Can you explain what the other option is and why you think it would be pretty? One other option is to go the route of Italy or Greece, run the welfare system at a massive imbalance, and make up for it with public debt. The other options are all some form of breach of the social contract. Either increasing the burden on the working age demographic past what they'll accept, or the eventual bankruptcy of the pension and healthcare system. Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned.

njdvndsjkvn 4y ago
>The other options are all some form of breach of the social contract The thing is a social contract that can't actually exist doesn't matter. If we all agree to not work but still receive benefits we haven't made a meaningful social contract. Breaching that contract is probably the best thing to do. Also, its difficult to evaluate exactly what the contract is here: is it that we all agree to a welfare state (roughly speaking) or is it that in the event that it is possible to have a welfare state then we will have it? I think the latter is more reasonable. >Pension levels would have to be lowered to the point where the elderly would have to come out of retirement and re-join the workforce to survive, despite a lifetime of making payments into the system and promises they'll be returned. The way I see it the point you're making here is that since they put in, they deserve to take out, as their input was when the system was still working and the contract thus in place. And that's true to a degree, but people implicitly acknowledge of and take a risk when they contribute to these systems. Did anyone think that in the event of a massive famine (for an extreme example) that they will magically be paid back on their contribution? The decline of the working population is maybe not something they thought about, but it comes implicitly as part of a general acknowledgement that a given system only exists withing a certain interval of environments. All this said, you didn't explicitly state that you believe this contract should be upheld at all costs, but that seems to be the only case where that point would be relevant in the first place.

gopher_space 4y ago

> Wouldn't it be better to bite the bullet and let the country reach its carrying capacity naturally even if it results in some pain? A timely subject now, but I'll always remember Queen Elizabeth pitching austerity to the British public while sitting in front of a solid gold piano.