• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I mean every society has to rebuild after a crash, I’m just optimistic that they’ll do it faster

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Got a summary? I know the onus is on me, but I’m not likely to dig much further

          • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Within 50 years, the whole world population is going to shrink dramatically, and it will have nothing to do with declining birth rates.

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 hours ago

              That’s an interesting claim. Where are you getting that idea? Are you suggesting climate change will do this without decreasing birth rates?

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            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.

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 hours ago

              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.

              • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 hours ago

                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.

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  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.

                  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    15 hours ago

                    Or you reset the currency, like Turkey has done many times before no? You swear off your debts, print new money.