4 ms·

Parents support their children, then when the parents are retired the children support them. Is publicly funded childcare and eldercare a Ponzi scheme?

dylan604 4y ago
in most families doing this kind of support, then it is typical for numChildren > numParents. So while this may not be the technical definition of Ponzi, the fact that the next generation needs to be larger to sustain the system just sounds like an unsustainable system.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I’m not just talking about families, but societies. My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am. I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents. Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works. I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Until you have kids
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      That’s played itself out, and there’s only going to be one between my sister and myself. So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild. Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        right, that's why the system is failing
        pyuser583 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s “the system.” Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.” And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.” For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there. So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output. I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output. Can you describe a system like that?
    - carlosjobim 4y ago
      Any working person in our modern industrialized society can have a productive output that can support many people. Productivity has sky rocketed, as well as population.
    - zsz 4y ago
      Population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman--meaning, in order for a population's size to remain the same, on average child births have to come out to 2.1 for every woman. All Western countries have been well below replacement level, for many decades at this point. Taking the example of One brother and one sister, the sister would have to bear 2.1 children, while the brother would have to have 2.1 children with another woman, in order to merely keep the population size level. The reason for this is obvious: two sets of parents=4 people, the same number as the 2*2.1 children (minus premature deaths, etc.).
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        Fertility rate is calculated as number of children per woman. So the sister must have 2.1 children to sustain, but the brother’s “contributions” don’t matter.

dylan604 4y ago

in most families doing this kind of support, then it is typical for numChildren > numParents. So while this may not be the technical definition of Ponzi, the fact that the next generation needs to be larger to sustain the system just sounds like an unsustainable system.

pyuser583 4y ago
I’m not just talking about families, but societies. My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am. I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents. Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works. I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Until you have kids
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    That’s played itself out, and there’s only going to be one between my sister and myself. So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild. Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      right, that's why the system is failing
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        I don’t think it’s “the system.” Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.” And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.” For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there. So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output. I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output. Can you describe a system like that?
  - carlosjobim 4y ago
    Any working person in our modern industrialized society can have a productive output that can support many people. Productivity has sky rocketed, as well as population.
  - zsz 4y ago
    Population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman--meaning, in order for a population's size to remain the same, on average child births have to come out to 2.1 for every woman. All Western countries have been well below replacement level, for many decades at this point. Taking the example of One brother and one sister, the sister would have to bear 2.1 children, while the brother would have to have 2.1 children with another woman, in order to merely keep the population size level. The reason for this is obvious: two sets of parents=4 people, the same number as the 2*2.1 children (minus premature deaths, etc.).
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      Fertility rate is calculated as number of children per woman. So the sister must have 2.1 children to sustain, but the brother’s “contributions” don’t matter.