The only downside to a declining population is that the moneyed class will have fewer people to exploit, and at this point, anything that harms the moneyed class is a good thing.
Oh, and:
Many researchers believe this accelerating global shift is being driven in large part by a positive reality.
And I believe they’re wrong. I believe it’s driven primarily by the negative reality that much of human civilization (and the planet itself) has been warped and corrupted for the benefit of a relative handful of greedy, power-hungry psychopaths, and more people all the time don’t want to bring a child into such a shitty world.
If we lived in a fair and equitable society, caring for those people would not be a huge burden. It’s only because everyone is fighting just to survive that adding the care for those elderly in top is such a problem.
Appropriately enough, that bubble of aging people also holds an outsized proprtion of the political power.
So all they have to do, if they want to ensure that there’s a constant supply of young people to do the work, is use their political power to make the country the kind of place into which people would want to bring children.
And I have to say, cruel though it might be, that if they can’t even be arsed to do that, then it’s their own problem and their own fault.
It’s true that this is very bad news for the moneyed class. But it can simultaneously also be bad news for normal people. A higher ratio of pensioners to tax payers will raise taxes for everyone which is a bad thing, to everyone. This is true for any economic system I can imagine. Even in an economic system without money having a high ratio of pensioners means a larger portion of working people have to be dedicated to taking care of the elderly which means less medical workers, less farmers, less social workers helping the non-pensioners etc, meaning worse living standards for the population.
Even in your preferred dream society and economic system (which I don’t know about) I can’t see an aging population being a good thing. If you have a suggestion for how it could be a good thing please enlighten me. And before you say we can just tax the rich to pay for pensions. You could also tax the rich to pay for better healthcare, which would be preferably for us non-pensioners would it not?
We can’t simultaneously be in a society where productivity goes up faster than wages and AI is going to provide labor for free and one that is worried we won’t have enough resources to support the elderly in some indeterminate future.
The retired have already had a lifetime of wages stolen from them to pad capitalists’ bank accounts. The excess productivity is there, it’s just not available to the broad tax base. Take that back and there’s plenty to go around.
Even if you take money out of the equation, people need the productive output of other people to survive.
A man alone on a desert island cannot retire. As soon as he is unable to provide for himself, he dies. Yes, he can accumulate certain “savings,” but much of what is needed to survive cannot be banked and used later. Food storage is limited, and any method of long term food storage tends to require additional processing to be edible, so there will always need to be some kind of just-in-time cooking process to keep people fed. Same with shelter, where maintenance needs will always be there, or health care, where real time treatment will always need to be done.
In a society with a shrinking population, there will be an unrelenting pressure to simply stop supporting those who are not productive. And those who are productive will selfishly shape that society to cover their own needs first.
That’s not just capitalism, it’s every economic system. Taking care of our elderly and our disabled is a luxury of a prosperous society. If the ratio goes out of wack, the willingness to continue supporting that luxury may not always be there.
So?
The only downside to a declining population is that the moneyed class will have fewer people to exploit, and at this point, anything that harms the moneyed class is a good thing.
Oh, and:
And I believe they’re wrong. I believe it’s driven primarily by the negative reality that much of human civilization (and the planet itself) has been warped and corrupted for the benefit of a relative handful of greedy, power-hungry psychopaths, and more people all the time don’t want to bring a child into such a shitty world.
There’s a bubble of aging people who need to be supported by younger people. Fewer younger people means declining options for everyone.
Except those rich people, who are going to find it more easy to exploit the remaining, more desperate workers.
If we lived in a fair and equitable society, caring for those people would not be a huge burden. It’s only because everyone is fighting just to survive that adding the care for those elderly in top is such a problem.
Appropriately enough, that bubble of aging people also holds an outsized proprtion of the political power.
So all they have to do, if they want to ensure that there’s a constant supply of young people to do the work, is use their political power to make the country the kind of place into which people would want to bring children.
And I have to say, cruel though it might be, that if they can’t even be arsed to do that, then it’s their own problem and their own fault.
It’s true that this is very bad news for the moneyed class. But it can simultaneously also be bad news for normal people. A higher ratio of pensioners to tax payers will raise taxes for everyone which is a bad thing, to everyone. This is true for any economic system I can imagine. Even in an economic system without money having a high ratio of pensioners means a larger portion of working people have to be dedicated to taking care of the elderly which means less medical workers, less farmers, less social workers helping the non-pensioners etc, meaning worse living standards for the population.
Even in your preferred dream society and economic system (which I don’t know about) I can’t see an aging population being a good thing. If you have a suggestion for how it could be a good thing please enlighten me. And before you say we can just tax the rich to pay for pensions. You could also tax the rich to pay for better healthcare, which would be preferably for us non-pensioners would it not?
We can’t simultaneously be in a society where productivity goes up faster than wages and AI is going to provide labor for free and one that is worried we won’t have enough resources to support the elderly in some indeterminate future.
The retired have already had a lifetime of wages stolen from them to pad capitalists’ bank accounts. The excess productivity is there, it’s just not available to the broad tax base. Take that back and there’s plenty to go around.
Even if you take money out of the equation, people need the productive output of other people to survive.
A man alone on a desert island cannot retire. As soon as he is unable to provide for himself, he dies. Yes, he can accumulate certain “savings,” but much of what is needed to survive cannot be banked and used later. Food storage is limited, and any method of long term food storage tends to require additional processing to be edible, so there will always need to be some kind of just-in-time cooking process to keep people fed. Same with shelter, where maintenance needs will always be there, or health care, where real time treatment will always need to be done.
In a society with a shrinking population, there will be an unrelenting pressure to simply stop supporting those who are not productive. And those who are productive will selfishly shape that society to cover their own needs first.
That’s not just capitalism, it’s every economic system. Taking care of our elderly and our disabled is a luxury of a prosperous society. If the ratio goes out of wack, the willingness to continue supporting that luxury may not always be there.