4 ms·
Living longer is generally bad for the economy. Why do we care so much life expectancy. Other than a measurement a countries success?
by philliphaydon 4y ago
Living longer is generally bad for the economy. Why do we care so much life expectancy. Other than a measurement a countries success?
- becquerel 4y agoBecause human life is more valuable than the economy?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- philliphaydon 4y agoOther than us as individuals wanting to live long and see our family grow or to explore the wonders of the world. Why does one person living long have more value over someone having a good quality life?
- AlexandrB 4y agoI don't see how these are mutually exclusive.
- achanda358 4y agoPeople living longer is generally a proxy for people being healthier. A healthier society is more prosperous since people can work more and produce better output.
- philliphaydon 4y agoSure but you end up with wealth hoarding as older people live into retirement and by the time they pass on their kids are entering retirement.
- marcinzm 4y agoThen tax them or otherwise increase the distribution of wealth. "Kill them since it's easier" is such an odd way to look at things to me.
- philliphaydon 4y agoNot sure where I said I said kill them or implied killing them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Gareth321 4y agoSociety exists for the betterment of its constituents. Life expectancy is considered an important success metric because people generally like living long. While you're right that old people are less productive, the health of the economy is not the goal of a society. The economy is a tool we use to better our lives. We should never be beholden to the tool itself. The moment the economy stops making our lives better, it's time to make some changes.
- philliphaydon 4y agoLiving longer generally has a negative affect on the economy so the quality of life in some ways is worse for the younger generations. So it seems it’s only useful as a metric of short term success of a country.
- fullshark 4y agoAll those laborers working, enabling greater return to capital, are doing so based on a social contract. One that doesn't send them to the glue factory the second they no longer are capable laborers.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoThat can't be true, the free market is efficient and if killing off your parents increases that efficiency then it obviously should be done because nothing else matters. /S
- AlexandrB 4y agoBesides what others have said, it's important not to confuse life expectancy and longevity. Because life expectancy averages lifespans, life expectancy declines very rapidly when a lot of young people are dying. Note that the article mentions drug overdose as a major driver - which probably affects the young more than the old.
- philliphaydon 4y agoLife expectancy and longevity goes hand in hand. Resolving issues hindering life expectancy only serves to extend longevity.
- AlexandrB 4y agoGetting infant mortality down would have a big impact on the life expectancy in the US but has nothing to do with longevity.
- throwaway743 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- esalman 4y ago> Living longer is generally bad for the economy. How?
- hammock 4y agoWe can save the economy if we all just die earlier and stop having kids. It's us that's the problem. Do this and the stock market will go back up!
- steve_adams_86 4y agoI feel compelled to echo that life is worth living without a booming economy. You’re here because that’s true and your ancestors agreed.
- timbit42 4y agoHow does reducing the size of the consumer pool help the economy? More consumers helps the economy.
- philliphaydon 4y agoRetired generation tend to hoard their wealth to live off, not spend it, by the time they pass their kids are retiring, the wealth never goes back into the economy as investments or purchases. Or of course you end up with an aged population that depends on taxes to survive.