2 ms·
Can't they also just... Live with fewer people? Living standards increased after the Plague wiped out a huge chunk of the population. The only people who DON'T
by HPsquared 2y ago
Can't they also just... Live with fewer people? Living standards increased after the Plague wiped out a huge chunk of the population. The only people who DON'T benefit are "asset owners" whose status and asset values (land prices) would decrease. Everyone else would enjoy cheaper housing, full employment and boosted social status to "workers".
- Cumpiler69 2y ago> Living standards increased after the Plague wiped out a huge chunk of the population. That's not the argument people want to hear.
- sofixa 2y ago> Live with fewer people? Living standards increased after the Plague wiped out a huge chunk of the population Having a catastrophic event wipe out large swathes of the population... and large swathes of the population being old (so requiring disproportionate amounts of effort and contributing little to economic and social efforts) is very different. If 60% of a country 's population is in retirement homes, who will take care for them? Who will work all the jobs required to maintain a standard of living for everyone and pay for those retirees?
- HPsquared 2y agoThere's no way a country would have anything like 60% in nursing homes. In rapidly ageing Japan and UK it's less than 1%.
- sofixa 2y agoRapidly aging, not already aged. For South Korea if current trends persist (so far they've only been getting worse), it's expected that 25% of the population would be 60 and older by 2050.