Yeah, but that’s only a problem if elderly orderlies is an underpaid job that no one wants, and if people can’t afford to live on it when choosing such a profession.
If the economy adjusts or society adjusts such that caring for the elderly is a highly sought out and secure job that can easily pay a mortgage, what’s the issue?
This is what I mean when I say they will crash and their economy will adjust.
There aren’t enough tax payers paying into the system to sustain the end of life care, retirement funds/pensions/social security equivalents that an elderly population that large. when you have a 1:1 ratio of people paying in vs paying out your assistance levels will be extremely weak.
No nation can sustain that large of an elder population. It’s not economically viable.
Under the current system. All retirement vehicles dependent on the investment market will crash horribly. Anyone with retirement funds in such a crash is doomed. Which will force a reset and a switch to a new financial system (see: Turkey’s various resets over the last 50 years, or Greece in the last 10). Money will be lost. The system will reset, re-valuate the demand for such services, and people will be paid in a new currency to plug the supply.
This has nothing to do with retirement funds in a stock market.
The issue is entirely one of taxation. You need 2-3 people working for every retired person taking payments from the system. If you have 1:1 you cannot afford to do this which means either a massive die off of the elderly or a growing massive national debt.
That’s an incredibly optimistic outlook.
hard to function with a negative outlook
I mean every society has to rebuild after a crash, I’m just optimistic that they’ll do it faster
You might want to look into the population studies on Japan. They are pretty bleak
Got a summary? I know the onus is on me, but I’m not likely to dig much further
Within 50 years the population will shrink to 70% of current levels with 40ish percent of the total population being elderly.
Within 50 years, the whole world population is going to shrink dramatically, and it will have nothing to do with declining birth rates.
That’s an interesting claim. Where are you getting that idea? Are you suggesting climate change will do this without decreasing birth rates?
Yeah, but that’s only a problem if elderly orderlies is an underpaid job that no one wants, and if people can’t afford to live on it when choosing such a profession.
If the economy adjusts or society adjusts such that caring for the elderly is a highly sought out and secure job that can easily pay a mortgage, what’s the issue?
This is what I mean when I say they will crash and their economy will adjust.
There aren’t enough tax payers paying into the system to sustain the end of life care, retirement funds/pensions/social security equivalents that an elderly population that large. when you have a 1:1 ratio of people paying in vs paying out your assistance levels will be extremely weak.
No nation can sustain that large of an elder population. It’s not economically viable.
Under the current system. All retirement vehicles dependent on the investment market will crash horribly. Anyone with retirement funds in such a crash is doomed. Which will force a reset and a switch to a new financial system (see: Turkey’s various resets over the last 50 years, or Greece in the last 10). Money will be lost. The system will reset, re-valuate the demand for such services, and people will be paid in a new currency to plug the supply.
This has nothing to do with retirement funds in a stock market.
The issue is entirely one of taxation. You need 2-3 people working for every retired person taking payments from the system. If you have 1:1 you cannot afford to do this which means either a massive die off of the elderly or a growing massive national debt.