4 ms·
This number doesn't take into consideration the contributions of these people to society, which could outweigh their additional healthcare cost and make them an
by glimshe 3y ago
This number doesn't take into consideration the contributions of these people to society, which could outweigh their additional healthcare cost and make them an actual net positive to the economy (putting aside moral questions about calculating whether people should live or die based on their net value).
- flappyeagle 3y agoWhy does this matter? It’s definitionally the least productive years of someone’s life outside of childhood.
- peapicker 3y agoA nearly 80 yr old man I know has a nearly 200k per year pension. Every five years he lives adds 1 million to the economy.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoIf by “add 1 million to the economy”, you mean the local economy where the 80 year old lives, then sure I guess. But in general that’s just money moving around.
- qwytw 3y agoHow does that work? I mean technically he takes 200k from the economy without producing anything in return. In very basic terms the government printing an extra 200k adds about as much value (assuming he's not actively investing and not doing anything else).
- matthewdgreen 3y agoIf he was “actively investing” would that change the situation?
- qwytw 3y agoTheoretically to some extent it would depending on how he allocated his investments (it could also be the opposite).
- glimshe 3y agoMany cancers triggered by smoking hit during late working years.
- qwytw 3y agoFrom a purely utilitarian/dystopian/evil/etc. point of view: aren't most people suffering much older on average? e.g. in the median age at diagnosis is ~71. Most people at that age have very low productivity live on a pension/from savings/other passive income and economically probably cost more to the society than they contribute.
- rcme 3y agoSmokers also pay more taxes over their lifetime so they contribute more to society in addition to costing less at the end of their life.