3 ms·
Your concerns implicitly depend on productivity per worker remaining constant over time. As that is not true, it's not clear that the changing retiree to worker
by czr80 14y ago
Your concerns implicitly depend on productivity per worker remaining constant over time. As that is not true, it's not clear that the changing retiree to worker ratio is as big a problem as you claim.
- anigbrowl 14y agoWages have not risen in proportion to the worker:retiree ratio, nor have revenues since things like payroll taxes are capped. Many productivity gains are the result of capital investment and automation and are thus captured by the employer.
- DenisM 14y agoI'm afraid that's because the wages are linked to cost of living, rather that outcome. Even software developers with some serious pricing power on today's market are often reluctant to switch jobs unless they can't afford something "essential", be it simple rent increase, or another Hawaii trip. I call this "tragedy of employment" - people being paid at cost rather than value. One solution to that problem might be replacing payroll tax with another tax that is closely correlated with productivity rather than wages.
- philwelch 14y agoAs long as the money is somewhere in the economy, it's a very simple problem to tax it to fund benefits.
- tsotha 14y ago>Wages have not risen in proportion to the worker... Employers are paying more per worker except on the lowest tier, it's just that the increases have all gone into paying greatly increased health insurance premiums. For unskilled labor wages haven't gone up because the job market was flooded with ten million illegal aliens. That's just a question of supply and demand.