3 ms·

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 decli

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.

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.