It’s a problem that there will be fewer people in the generation below ours to support our generation in our dotage. This problem is the same regardless of your economic model. Fewer people in the working pool and more people sick and elderly is a bad time.
There’s currently 5 million care workers in the US, at a total population of 332 million. Source
That means that even if the birth rates drop really low and we only have 50 million workers in the next generation, it will still be enough to care for the elderly.
However, it might not be enough to fill the last bullshit workplace some company makes up to make yet another dollar into the pockets of the rich.
Old people, even those who rely on care workers directly, also rely on a lot of other types of workers. They need to eat, so some portion of the farmers, agricultural processors, logistics workers, cooks, dishwashers, etc. will need to continue to support the industries that feed people. Then the industries that feed people also rely on their own supply chains: equipment manufacturers and maintainers, electricity and energy, etc.
Simply being alive relies on the work of others. Broadly speaking, we expect there to be a ratio of workers to the broader population, including those who are not working: children, students, disabled, elderly retirees, etc. If the workers stop working, the non-workers won’t be able to live.
If there’s a one-person society, they basically will always need to work at least some to stay alive. If they’re incapacitated from age or injury, that might mean death, no matter how much they’ve accumulated up to that point.
So no, I don’t think this is a uniquely capitalist problem. Non-capitalist societies have dealt with population collapse before, but those tend to impose real danger to the non-working elderly, and not all of them survive the turmoil.
Population collapse is also occurring in communist countries. China additionally scuppered themselves by previously putting taxes on multi-child families to get ahead of overpopulation and in doing so accelerated the collapse of the working population ahead of that in capitalist countries.
The majority of the hours worked in the US economy are pure pointless waste. The waste rate is so high because labor is cheap. With more expensive labor, companies will have to use it more responsibly.
If you think companies use labor efficiently, you have clearly never worked in a big corporate office.
Solving the labor crisis of aging is trivially simple. The market will simply force companies to be more efficient with labor. And as labor earns higher wages, workers will pay higher payroll taxes and be able to keep the pension system running.
It’s a problem that there will be fewer people in the generation below ours to support our generation in our dotage. This problem is the same regardless of your economic model. Fewer people in the working pool and more people sick and elderly is a bad time.
There’s currently 5 million care workers in the US, at a total population of 332 million. Source
That means that even if the birth rates drop really low and we only have 50 million workers in the next generation, it will still be enough to care for the elderly.
However, it might not be enough to fill the last bullshit workplace some company makes up to make yet another dollar into the pockets of the rich.
Old people, even those who rely on care workers directly, also rely on a lot of other types of workers. They need to eat, so some portion of the farmers, agricultural processors, logistics workers, cooks, dishwashers, etc. will need to continue to support the industries that feed people. Then the industries that feed people also rely on their own supply chains: equipment manufacturers and maintainers, electricity and energy, etc.
Simply being alive relies on the work of others. Broadly speaking, we expect there to be a ratio of workers to the broader population, including those who are not working: children, students, disabled, elderly retirees, etc. If the workers stop working, the non-workers won’t be able to live.
If there’s a one-person society, they basically will always need to work at least some to stay alive. If they’re incapacitated from age or injury, that might mean death, no matter how much they’ve accumulated up to that point.
So no, I don’t think this is a uniquely capitalist problem. Non-capitalist societies have dealt with population collapse before, but those tend to impose real danger to the non-working elderly, and not all of them survive the turmoil.
That’s the great part the current youth won’t get to be sick and elderly. We’ll just be sick and dead.
And what causes fewer younger people?
Couples not having children.
What causes couples not to have children?
Well, beyond simply not wanting them: economic insecurity. A more equitable economic system would remove that barrier.
Population collapse is also occurring in communist countries. China additionally scuppered themselves by previously putting taxes on multi-child families to get ahead of overpopulation and in doing so accelerated the collapse of the working population ahead of that in capitalist countries.
You’re not describing a country with a equitable economic system.
The majority of the hours worked in the US economy are pure pointless waste. The waste rate is so high because labor is cheap. With more expensive labor, companies will have to use it more responsibly.
If you think companies use labor efficiently, you have clearly never worked in a big corporate office.
Solving the labor crisis of aging is trivially simple. The market will simply force companies to be more efficient with labor. And as labor earns higher wages, workers will pay higher payroll taxes and be able to keep the pension system running.