5 ms·

The economists are worried because (retirement) savings are nothing more than a claim on future labor. As people grow older and are less capable of taking care

by gizmo 2y ago

The economists are worried because (retirement) savings are nothing more than a claim on future labor. As people grow older and are less capable of taking care of themselves other people need to care for them. People can be secure in their retirement when the number they have saved is sufficient to purchase the labor they need later in life. But what will the price of that labor be when birth rates collapse and there aren't sufficient people around to do this labor? Retirement savings mean nothing when the people needed to do the work are not available. For wealthy western countries immigration is the only realistic solution address the shortage of working-age people. It's not a silver bullet, though. Immigration scares people and populist politicians will exploit this fear of change. We should also remember that politicians in rich countries are very old. They care a great deal about anything that affects their own retirement. To young people who don't have high expectations for their quality of life in their last couple of decades on earth this panic about demographic change may seem silly. But baby boomers care and they are the ones making policy.

atoav 2y ago
The fact is that my parents generation (currently retiring) made a bet on the younger generations supporting them through the retirement [insert socialism joke if you're from the US]. I never signed up to this tho, I have been born into it. Now I agree that the whole thing is in principle a good idea, but all fairness goes out of the window as soon as a your demographics are such that the biggest voting block is at the same time not working. So a class of old politicians constantly keeps putting off needed changes in the way retirement works, a price for which younger generations have to pay. The same happens in infrastructure, climate change etc. At some point my generation will have to question the validity of that social contract.
- iteratethis 2y ago
  What do you suggest regarding the social contract? I'm asking because whatever policy you'd like to see applied to the current elderly, is to be applied with twice the intensity to yourself, as the generation behind you is even smaller.
  - atoav 2y ago
    I think of this as a generic problem that happens when the (in this case) age structure of the representatives differs from the working population. So any fix would involve changing the age structure of representation. The particulars of the fix would depend on the specifics of a particular system, but one idea that could fix things would be absolute limits to the time you can be in office. So for example a rule that states any person may serve only X years in parliament over the course of their life. Those limits might have other benefits. Maybe even an absolute age limit would make sense, e.g. retirement age + X years. Of course old people should get political representation, but maybe putting a cap on it would work to make it more a government of working people. Another idea would be a voting multiplier, that gives proportionally more power to representatives that are from age brackets that are underrepresented in the governing body. All of these might have unanticipated side effects and there are probably even better ideas, but the point is: whatever it is, it has to be something that gives true concessions to the young people, otherwise there can be no true political negotiation between the retired many and the working few.
silverquiet 2y ago
First, I'd say that if those politicians are so worried, then perhaps they should work on building societies that people actually want to bring children into. Mainly though, I wonder - where is all the extra productivity that has supposedly developed over the last half century or so? Shouldn't that be able to cover over a declining population?
- gizmo 2y ago
  David Graeber argues much of that productivity has been sucked up by the managerial and administrative class. Any increase in productivity is offset by a new layer of middle management. I think we can also make a Moore's law analogy here. As CPUs get faster we write slower code.
- RestlessMind 2y ago
  We can ensure adequate supply of basic necessities... to the standard of the 1960's (food choices and availability, houses, cars, medical care, entertainment options etc). Problem is that someone living 1960's lifestyle would be considered poor today. And if old people realize that they are going to have a "poor lifestyle" in their retirement, a lot of political problems will follow.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I don’t really understand why we would be limited to the 60’s. My house was actually built in the 50’s though. It’s think a modern car built with 60’s amenities but modern engine management and design could be crazy efficient and affordable; I’d be a buyer there for sure. And obesity was much lower back then, so it hardly sounds like the food situation was bad. I guess the problem for me is that I live a fairly poor lifestyle already and actually rather enjoy it, so it’s hard for me to imagine it as such a problem.

by gizmo 2y ago

atoav 2y ago

The fact is that my parents generation (currently retiring) made a bet on the younger generations supporting them through the retirement [insert socialism joke if you're from the US]. I never signed up to this tho, I have been born into it. Now I agree that the whole thing is in principle a good idea, but all fairness goes out of the window as soon as a your demographics are such that the biggest voting block is at the same time not working. So a class of old politicians constantly keeps putting off needed changes in the way retirement works, a price for which younger generations have to pay. The same happens in infrastructure, climate change etc. At some point my generation will have to question the validity of that social contract.

iteratethis 2y ago
What do you suggest regarding the social contract? I'm asking because whatever policy you'd like to see applied to the current elderly, is to be applied with twice the intensity to yourself, as the generation behind you is even smaller.
- atoav 2y ago
  I think of this as a generic problem that happens when the (in this case) age structure of the representatives differs from the working population. So any fix would involve changing the age structure of representation. The particulars of the fix would depend on the specifics of a particular system, but one idea that could fix things would be absolute limits to the time you can be in office. So for example a rule that states any person may serve only X years in parliament over the course of their life. Those limits might have other benefits. Maybe even an absolute age limit would make sense, e.g. retirement age + X years. Of course old people should get political representation, but maybe putting a cap on it would work to make it more a government of working people. Another idea would be a voting multiplier, that gives proportionally more power to representatives that are from age brackets that are underrepresented in the governing body. All of these might have unanticipated side effects and there are probably even better ideas, but the point is: whatever it is, it has to be something that gives true concessions to the young people, otherwise there can be no true political negotiation between the retired many and the working few.

silverquiet 2y ago

First, I'd say that if those politicians are so worried, then perhaps they should work on building societies that people actually want to bring children into. Mainly though, I wonder - where is all the extra productivity that has supposedly developed over the last half century or so? Shouldn't that be able to cover over a declining population?

gizmo 2y ago
David Graeber argues much of that productivity has been sucked up by the managerial and administrative class. Any increase in productivity is offset by a new layer of middle management. I think we can also make a Moore's law analogy here. As CPUs get faster we write slower code.
RestlessMind 2y ago
We can ensure adequate supply of basic necessities... to the standard of the 1960's (food choices and availability, houses, cars, medical care, entertainment options etc). Problem is that someone living 1960's lifestyle would be considered poor today. And if old people realize that they are going to have a "poor lifestyle" in their retirement, a lot of political problems will follow.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I don’t really understand why we would be limited to the 60’s. My house was actually built in the 50’s though. It’s think a modern car built with 60’s amenities but modern engine management and design could be crazy efficient and affordable; I’d be a buyer there for sure. And obesity was much lower back then, so it hardly sounds like the food situation was bad. I guess the problem for me is that I live a fairly poor lifestyle already and actually rather enjoy it, so it’s hard for me to imagine it as such a problem.