3 ms·

The PM doesn't explicitly say why the population can't decline. I'm sure there are certain services, like social security in the U.S., that rely on a young tax-

by rcme 4y ago

The PM doesn't explicitly say why the population can't decline. I'm sure there are certain services, like social security in the U.S., that rely on a young tax-paying base. But, overall, the decline in population seems like a temporary problem with many possible solutions, some of which allow the population to fall gracefully. Assuming the wealth of the nation is fixed, halving the population would allow each citizen to own a slice of the pie twice as big.

noahtallen 4y ago
The big problem is capitalism, because it only incentivizes capital growing. When population declines or stays static over many years, there is much less opportunity for businesses to grow. Growth seems to be the main way our economy works and incentivizes behavior, so it makes sense that a lot of things could break. (For example, social security won’t work in its current form if the tax base stops growing.)
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  social security has nothing to do with capitalism.
fzeroracer 4y ago
The entire pensioning system is dependent on growth and a young tax base. The systems you and I take for granted elsewhere are staffed by the young. And a decline in population means disproportionately your population is elderly, and this spells trouble for any physical-oriented industries and also means that the retirement age must go up. This means you either squeeze the younger generation harder (which in turn leads to burn out, outright quitting the workforce or leaving their elderly family to die) or let the older generation die sooner by taking their pensions away.
- pydry 4y ago
  How about instead of letting automation and AI put people out of work (the media is, after all, just as confident that this will happen) we just keep the pension age where it is? Either that, or one of these narratives is bullshit. Perhaps both. Having fewer kids also means lower taxes needed to support schooling but that side of the balance sheet is curiously taken absolutely for granted in the mad rush to kill off retirement.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    What are you even talking about? The issues Japan faces is because as people attempt to retire there is literally no one to replacement. The retirement age is set to 70 years old and has been steadily going up. Elderly people even routinely work well beyond that because they don't have the financial ability to support themselves and their children cannot afford to support them either. Fewer kids means a larger tax burden on everyone. If you honestly think schooling is anywhere near the expense that is elderly care then you would be crazy. Especially since part of that cost is being pushed onto the children directly to take care of their parents.
    - rcme 4y ago
      The GP’s point is that there is a media narrative that AI is about to replace all of our jobs. Put another way, productivity is about to go way up. If that’s the case, and productivity is going to jump dramatically, then you can use some of the surplus created by the productivity gains to fund the retirement system. This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their sweet capital.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        > This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their sweet capital. I think the most likely reason for this is that the people with actual major decision-making powers know that the "AI is about to replace all of our jobs" is bs (at least on the level that most people imagine) on multiple levels. It sounds cool and futuristic, and it creates lots of room for speculation and hyped up article headlines. However, my robo-taxis (that everyone had been hyping up as becoming a thing by 2020) only seem further away with each year. ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are both neat and impressive, and will indeed take away some labor opportunities from humans, but they are very niche in their applications. Sure, a more practically useful AI might come into existence in the near future, but imo it will open up even more opportunities (albeit more skilled ones). But hey, go back only 200 years, and reading was considered a really advanced skill, and you wouldn't be able to imagine nearly everyone in the fairly near future being literate. And this is all just a speculation on future more practically useful AI system that doesn't even exist yet. Tl;dr: I think deep down, the decision-makers know that AI cannot replace humans when it comes to labor dynamics on the scale of a country, and that it will not get to that state in the next decade or two (or even within our lifetimes). Which makes it pretty much a non-starter for a serious consideration in the present time in matters of labor policies and economic planning.
everforward 4y ago
> Assuming the wealth of the nation is fixed, halving the population would allow each citizen to own a slice of the pie twice as big. I don't think this holds up to scrutiny. Consumption is fixed since the population is, and as the portion of citizens producing goods and services goes down there's a shortfall of those goods and services. Accumulated wealth will be used to patch over that shortfall via imports, and the wealth will be disbursed to the countries exporting those goods and services. The lack of production will cause inflation of goods and services, which will mean the retired won't have enough money saved. The government will either bail them out with accumulated wealth, or they won't and I'm not sure what the retired will do then.
- rcme 4y ago
  > Consumption is fixed since the population is, and as the portion of citizens producing goods and services goes down there's a shortfall of those goods and services. This ignores productivity gains, which allows for cheaper goods and services (i.e. more consumption per person) and for each person to produce more, thus making up the shortfall with the shrinking population.
  - everforward 4y ago
    Sure, I don't mean to imply those are the only economic forces in play. I don't think it's likely to entirely make up the shortfall, but I could be wrong. Just doing some napkin math, ~60% of the US is employed. They need to produce ~1.3x what they consume in order for everyone to have enough. Currently, about 50% of Japan works. They need to produce ~2x what they consume for everyone to have enough. If that number drops to 40%, they need to produce 2.5x what they consume. If it hits 30%, they need to produce 3.3x what they consume. A 10% drop in the employment rate would require a ~25% productivity increase. Even if that happens, their relative quality of life still falls because their productivity gains are cannibalized to maintain their quality of life while other nations use theirs to improve quality of life. Japan would need a substantial increase in productivity exclusive to them to maintain parity with the rest of the world in the medium-term. It's not impossible, but it does seem unlikely in the modern global economy. Especially given that a lot of productivity gains come from economies of scale, which they're losing with a shrinking population. Edit: dropped a word, had to re-add

by rcme 4y ago

noahtallen 4y ago

The big problem is capitalism, because it only incentivizes capital growing. When population declines or stays static over many years, there is much less opportunity for businesses to grow. Growth seems to be the main way our economy works and incentivizes behavior, so it makes sense that a lot of things could break. (For example, social security won’t work in its current form if the tax base stops growing.)

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
social security has nothing to do with capitalism.

fzeroracer 4y ago

The entire pensioning system is dependent on growth and a young tax base. The systems you and I take for granted elsewhere are staffed by the young. And a decline in population means disproportionately your population is elderly, and this spells trouble for any physical-oriented industries and also means that the retirement age must go up. This means you either squeeze the younger generation harder (which in turn leads to burn out, outright quitting the workforce or leaving their elderly family to die) or let the older generation die sooner by taking their pensions away.

pydry 4y ago
How about instead of letting automation and AI put people out of work (the media is, after all, just as confident that this will happen) we just keep the pension age where it is? Either that, or one of these narratives is bullshit. Perhaps both. Having fewer kids also means lower taxes needed to support schooling but that side of the balance sheet is curiously taken absolutely for granted in the mad rush to kill off retirement.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  What are you even talking about? The issues Japan faces is because as people attempt to retire there is literally no one to replacement. The retirement age is set to 70 years old and has been steadily going up. Elderly people even routinely work well beyond that because they don't have the financial ability to support themselves and their children cannot afford to support them either. Fewer kids means a larger tax burden on everyone. If you honestly think schooling is anywhere near the expense that is elderly care then you would be crazy. Especially since part of that cost is being pushed onto the children directly to take care of their parents.
  - rcme 4y ago
    The GP’s point is that there is a media narrative that AI is about to replace all of our jobs. Put another way, productivity is about to go way up. If that’s the case, and productivity is going to jump dramatically, then you can use some of the surplus created by the productivity gains to fund the retirement system. This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their sweet capital.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      > This idea is not often mentioned, however. One possible reason is that it requires the capitalist class, i.e. the ruling class, to sacrifice some of their sweet capital. I think the most likely reason for this is that the people with actual major decision-making powers know that the "AI is about to replace all of our jobs" is bs (at least on the level that most people imagine) on multiple levels. It sounds cool and futuristic, and it creates lots of room for speculation and hyped up article headlines. However, my robo-taxis (that everyone had been hyping up as becoming a thing by 2020) only seem further away with each year. ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion are both neat and impressive, and will indeed take away some labor opportunities from humans, but they are very niche in their applications. Sure, a more practically useful AI might come into existence in the near future, but imo it will open up even more opportunities (albeit more skilled ones). But hey, go back only 200 years, and reading was considered a really advanced skill, and you wouldn't be able to imagine nearly everyone in the fairly near future being literate. And this is all just a speculation on future more practically useful AI system that doesn't even exist yet. Tl;dr: I think deep down, the decision-makers know that AI cannot replace humans when it comes to labor dynamics on the scale of a country, and that it will not get to that state in the next decade or two (or even within our lifetimes). Which makes it pretty much a non-starter for a serious consideration in the present time in matters of labor policies and economic planning.

everforward 4y ago

> Assuming the wealth of the nation is fixed, halving the population would allow each citizen to own a slice of the pie twice as big. I don't think this holds up to scrutiny. Consumption is fixed since the population is, and as the portion of citizens producing goods and services goes down there's a shortfall of those goods and services. Accumulated wealth will be used to patch over that shortfall via imports, and the wealth will be disbursed to the countries exporting those goods and services. The lack of production will cause inflation of goods and services, which will mean the retired won't have enough money saved. The government will either bail them out with accumulated wealth, or they won't and I'm not sure what the retired will do then.

rcme 4y ago
> Consumption is fixed since the population is, and as the portion of citizens producing goods and services goes down there's a shortfall of those goods and services. This ignores productivity gains, which allows for cheaper goods and services (i.e. more consumption per person) and for each person to produce more, thus making up the shortfall with the shrinking population.
- everforward 4y ago
  Sure, I don't mean to imply those are the only economic forces in play. I don't think it's likely to entirely make up the shortfall, but I could be wrong. Just doing some napkin math, ~60% of the US is employed. They need to produce ~1.3x what they consume in order for everyone to have enough. Currently, about 50% of Japan works. They need to produce ~2x what they consume for everyone to have enough. If that number drops to 40%, they need to produce 2.5x what they consume. If it hits 30%, they need to produce 3.3x what they consume. A 10% drop in the employment rate would require a ~25% productivity increase. Even if that happens, their relative quality of life still falls because their productivity gains are cannibalized to maintain their quality of life while other nations use theirs to improve quality of life. Japan would need a substantial increase in productivity exclusive to them to maintain parity with the rest of the world in the medium-term. It's not impossible, but it does seem unlikely in the modern global economy. Especially given that a lot of productivity gains come from economies of scale, which they're losing with a shrinking population. Edit: dropped a word, had to re-add