4 ms·

How is it bad? Economically, it's a burden. Older people are more expensive, and the ratio of young to old people has certain economic implications too. As y

How is it bad? Economically, it's a burden. Older people are more expensive, and the ratio of young to old people has certain economic implications too. As you pointed out, there are good and bad aspects to it, but the bad aspects are real and not histrionic mirages.

FeteCommuniste 2y ago
For a while I've also had the gut feeling that the average age creeping up does something to the general mood of a culture. Young people are naturally more restless, ambitious, daring, and when the median person is very "settled" in their ways and closer to death than birth I think a certain vitality is lost.
- JohnClark1337 2y ago
  Not only that, but the young have to support the old in their retirement. This becomes a huge problem when there are multiple elderly per young person and the young find that they are spending most of their time and effort supporting the aging population. The elderly start being seen as a burden on society.
dingnuts 2y ago
putting the problem in terms of economics isn't incorrect, but I think it can be framed in a slightly more human and horrifying way: As a fact of nature, young adults must do the hard labor necessary to keep the world operating. Historically, there have always been more of them than there were people physically incapable of doing that work: the old and very young. If there are too many old people and not enough young people, who will take care of the old people?
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  what’s your take on AI replacing jobs?
derefr 2y ago
It's also a political burden, in two senses: 1. directly: in a democracy where the majority of voters are 60+ years old and retired, politicians will end up seeing the old and retired as their base and pandering to them; and this will lead to them implementing policies that serve the old and retired, to the detriment of those of working age. (See: literally anything about Japan's work culture.) 2. indirectly: social mores evolve over time, but this mostly occurs within the more-flexible, still-identity-forming minds of people of young ages. You can think of "modern" social mores as viral memes that spread easily between the "young" nodes in a social network; but which won't spread to/through the "old" nodes of the network. A a "top-heavy" society, where the old greatly outnumber the young, doesn't have the mean virality coefficient necessary to allow "modern" social mores to spread and achieve fixation. This in turn means that younger generations will feel they are living in a society that is "stuck in the past", with "outdated" thinking, where they cannot affect meaningful social change, despite everyone in their own (usually generational-cohort) social circles agreeing with them.
tiffanyh 2y ago
Said differently, many government programs for citizen retirement benefits (eg Social Security) are structured as Ponzi Schemes that require population increases over time so later generations can pay for earlier generations. If population is declining, it breaks how these programs are funding because there’ll be less n the younger generation to pay for the more people in the older generation.

FeteCommuniste 2y ago

For a while I've also had the gut feeling that the average age creeping up does something to the general mood of a culture. Young people are naturally more restless, ambitious, daring, and when the median person is very "settled" in their ways and closer to death than birth I think a certain vitality is lost.

JohnClark1337 2y ago
Not only that, but the young have to support the old in their retirement. This becomes a huge problem when there are multiple elderly per young person and the young find that they are spending most of their time and effort supporting the aging population. The elderly start being seen as a burden on society.

dingnuts 2y ago

putting the problem in terms of economics isn't incorrect, but I think it can be framed in a slightly more human and horrifying way: As a fact of nature, young adults must do the hard labor necessary to keep the world operating. Historically, there have always been more of them than there were people physically incapable of doing that work: the old and very young. If there are too many old people and not enough young people, who will take care of the old people?

sabbaticaldev 2y ago
what’s your take on AI replacing jobs?

derefr 2y ago

It's also a political burden, in two senses: 1. directly: in a democracy where the majority of voters are 60+ years old and retired, politicians will end up seeing the old and retired as their base and pandering to them; and this will lead to them implementing policies that serve the old and retired, to the detriment of those of working age. (See: literally anything about Japan's work culture.) 2. indirectly: social mores evolve over time, but this mostly occurs within the more-flexible, still-identity-forming minds of people of young ages. You can think of "modern" social mores as viral memes that spread easily between the "young" nodes in a social network; but which won't spread to/through the "old" nodes of the network. A a "top-heavy" society, where the old greatly outnumber the young, doesn't have the mean virality coefficient necessary to allow "modern" social mores to spread and achieve fixation. This in turn means that younger generations will feel they are living in a society that is "stuck in the past", with "outdated" thinking, where they cannot affect meaningful social change, despite everyone in their own (usually generational-cohort) social circles agreeing with them.

tiffanyh 2y ago

Said differently, many government programs for citizen retirement benefits (eg Social Security) are structured as Ponzi Schemes that require population increases over time so later generations can pay for earlier generations. If population is declining, it breaks how these programs are funding because there’ll be less n the younger generation to pay for the more people in the older generation.