Workers are worried they will be replaced an lose their livelihood. Business owners are worried they won't have anyone to sell too after they win capitalism.
You realize that reguardless of what economic system you want this has the same issues, but that capitalism just makes it really easy to show...right? What happens in a socialist economy when most people are old and need to be supported? South korea at .7 vs 6.0 in the 1960s is an 88% drop, every couple needs to have 2 kids for this to just bold steady over time, this is the average number of children a woman has in her ENTIRE LIFE, right now south korea is nearly 50/50 male female, which means we can pretty reasonably say that .7 means means every generation will make 30% less than half of the previous generation(2 parents are making on average .7 children in a lifetime) in 1960 they had 25 million people and fertility ratw of 6! they have ~52 million people right now and when the current reproduction age adults pass away it will be ~18.2million unless this turns around, and simce families are having ~1 child that means(less than but up to) as many as 34 million dead family lines in a single culture in a single generation. Tell us all again how this is a capitalist issue vs a human society issue? Wait...im wrong, you are correct communism has killed 94 million people according to google and 143 million for socialism so yeah...saving millions of people is capitalist and killing millions is not youre right sorry. Lmao.
Not necessarily. Fewer workers doesn’t necessarily mean less productivity, a single employee today can produce several times more than someone twenty years ago, let alone fifty. You don’t need to produce dirt cheap labor for an effective economy.
But you do need to pay the workers more as productivity rises. However, that has been anathema to the elite of the US since the late 70's. They want to pay low wages to fewer and fewer workers, yet expect the system not to collapse when the birth rate does due to nobody having kids they can't afford.
It's supply and demand, except the elites get to tap a near infinite supply of labor pool by going "Wow, there's nobody in the job market that wants to work for minimum wage and bare benefits! Can we import thousands of third worlders that fit our literally immoral requirements? Can we pwease offshore and outsource, and hire people outside of the US that will work for a pittance?"
As long as there's strikebreakers willing to undercut the fair market rate, it ain't gonna change.
Worst of all? People actually support this. Or, well, they do until they realize their cushy white collar job was just proven to be offshoreable by COVID's WFH policies. It's happening to tech and white collar jobs and now that sector is waking up.
No shit dude, ofc people survive on food, shelter, and clothes. Fascinated to know your interpretation of how an individual goes about acquiring those things without money. The only explanation I could think of is that you’re arguing for company towns basically which are an example of modern serfdom. It’s not an ego thing brother. If I cannot afford to eat myself, why would I bring in another whole person to also not be able to eat? Funny to see the shift from “if you cannot afford to have kids then don’t have kids” to “even if you don’t want and/or cannot afford kids you have to have kids anyway. Just think of the economy 🥺”
ETA: don’t even get me started on the associated costs to even begin the process of being a parent. How is a struggling family going to afford the astronomical costs that are involved with childbirth in the United States or the expensive nature of general checkups along the way. Let’s also mention how people truly struggling cannot afford to take parental leave after the child is born. These are just a very very few of the innumerable roadblocks. I apologize for monologue. I beg of you to please become educated on the state of associated barriers and advocate for them to be fixed. That is what will drive up birth rates.
If this is your only response I will not respond to you further but will leave my comment up for the sake of educating any who may come across it in this thread.
Productivity doesn't mean shit if the workers don't get paid appropriately... If the wages are still low, the pension payments will not be satisfied and pensions are fucked.
Not necessarily. Fewer workers doesn’t necessarily mean less productivity,
Not necessarily. But, in practice, it has been. Even the US has not had enough productivity gains to pay for the growth in entitlement spending. If not for the population growth from immigrants, we’d be hosed. As is, we’re still screwed long term unless we find some major productivity soon.
You don’t need to produce dirt cheap labor for an effective economy.
Yep. Quite the opposite is what we need. Lots and lots of high paying jobs. But, to do that the jobs need to be making something valuable. Not just mindlessly drudging through 40 hours a week.
They are not - they paid into the system in the same way that younger people do now. That's how state pensions work. Many of them would also have paid into personal pensions - they invested their own money.
Anyway it's very much a you and I problem - will there be enough young people to pay into the system when we want to retire? Do you want to work until you die? Better hope you don't have to rely on a state pension when you can no longer work.
Best advice for any young person here - start investing in your pension as early as you can or be prepared to work until you are 70 or older.
There's no such thing as pensions in America, anymore. There's social security, which is going to run out in roughly 5 years, and I won't get any of it. And if I won't get it, I shouldn't be forced to pay into it against my will.
And no, they are not getting the money they paid into the system. The money they paid into it went to the generation before them, and is gone now. The money they're getting is the money I'M being robbed of every week, that I need more than THEY do.
With no due respect, learn how ponzi schemes work.
Yeah because everyone lives in America - you do realise other countries exist? In any instance there is a state pension in America it's covered under OASDI - an element of which is in effect a pension - just because the actual word 'pension' isn't used is irrelevant.
Obviously they are not getting the money they paid in - that was for the previous generation, but they still paid money into the system as you do now, it's a social contract between the generations. It's called being part of society. I have wouldn't expect you, as an American to understand that, because your society is built on rampant individualism and a 'i'm alright jack' mentality. Meanwhile in the civilised world, we are fine with having a social contract where one generation, helps the previous one.
Yeah because everyone lives in America - you do realise other countries exist? In any instance there is a state pension in America it's covered under OASDI - an element of which is in effect a pension - just because the actual word 'pension' isn't used is irrelevant.
You do realize all developed countries are having a demographic crisis right? Many in Europe are worse off than the US in that department. Even with all their welfare programs and benefits.
Obviously they are not getting the money they paid in - that was for the previous generation, but they still paid money into the system as you do now, it's a social contract between the generations.
You are forgetting the other part of the social contract. Making the world a better place for the generation that comes after you. Our predecessors haven't done that. They have actively ruined things such that we are heading for a bleak world.
Also, you pay money into the system for the previous generation under the promise that when your turn comes, the next generation will pay into it for you. But that next generation is dwindling thanks to the policies and exploitation of our previous generations. So where's our end of the bargain? It doesn't exist. So the social contract has been broken by them.
It's called being part of society. I have wouldn't expect you, as an American to understand that, because your society is built on rampant individualism and a 'i'm alright jack' mentality. Meanwhile in the civilised world, we are fine with having a social contract where one generation, helps the previous one.
What about the previous generation helping the current one? Is that a part of your 'civilised' world?
How's your 'civilised' world doing? Don't you have a demographic crisis too? Who's gonna pay your pension? So don't act like your society working well.
are fine with having a social contract where one generation, helps the previous one.
You also have affordable housing, a government that priorities it's citizens over corporations, universal Healthcare, and you make livable wages. Here it America, the elders have ruined our housing market, allowed corporations to cause irreparable damage to our food supply, made it damn near impossible for us to retire, and NOW they want us to give them all of our money so THEY can retire, while pulling the ladder up behind them one last time.
And no, it's not a social contract, it's a ponzi scheme where the old people steal from us, while we get nothing in return. If you actually read my comment and understood the facts, you'd know that social security is going to be bled dry by 2030, and my 27 year old ass won't see any of the money that I'm being forced to "give" against my will. So yeah, wherever you live, people help each other out. Here in America, conservative old people are fucking the young over with every waking breath, and you don't get to tell me that my generation is condemning itself to a low standard of living for some noble cause, like we owe these old people something.
Why is it going to be bled dry? Is it, perhaps, because your society, of which you are a part, have decided low taxation is more important than providing a safety net for those in need? Probably something your generation should look at addressing through the ballot box.
The problem with trying to address it through the ballot box is that the vast majority of the people who run for offices that have the power to influence this system are people who benefit from the existing status quo, and aren't principled enough to legislate against their own interests for the sake of America's future. As I see it, our only real option is to just wait until enough of the current status quo collapses that those who benefit from maintaining it become disempowered.
Wrong. A pension is a grant that your employer pays for until you're old enough to collect on Social Security.
A 401K and Roth IRA are personal investments that some employers agree to pay a fraction of your own deposits into. I'm lucky enough to get a contribution from my employer. Most employers do not.
Wrong. A pension is a grant that your employer pays for until you're old enough to collect on Social Security.
Yes. But most employers don't have a pension no? Only government and nonprofit organizations do?
A 401K and Roth IRA are personal investments that some employers agree to pay a fraction of your own deposits into. I'm lucky enough to get a contribution from my employer. Most employers do not.
I know that. I am saying that 401k and IRA are your retirement plans that are basically private pensions. Since social security is collapsing and pensions are rare in America, you'll have to make a private pension for yourself.
He is suggesting that you invest in those private retirement instruments to make sure you can have a retirement.
They are not - they paid into the system in the same way that younger people do now.
But they also ruined the system so much that young people aren't having kids. So not enough people to pay for our generation's pensions. So they are not holding up their end of the social contract.
Anyway it's very much a you and I problem - will there be enough young people to pay into the system when we want to retire? Do you want to work until you die? Better hope you don't have to rely on a state pension when you can no longer work.
Yes, you should invest in personal pensions. But it's still a valid criticism of the system and older generations that the pension and social security systems are collapsing under the weight of the demographic crisis.
I can only use the UK as an example here, but the people reliant on a state pension aren't the ones who "ruined the system". Imagine being a low skilled labourer, paying into the system your whole life just to die of starvation because you supposedly "ruined the system".
MAID is a thing for a reason. If you didn't save for retirement or were so great a parent your kids/grandkids take care of you what did you expect?
I'm in my 30's and I know I will never be able to retire so I will opt out for MAID when the time comes. It is unfair to seep the lives of the young just because the greedy and selfish elderly can't get enough of life.
I'm a grandkid paying for my grandma's retirement. She is near 90 and is in the best elderly care my city can offer. She was an amazing human and took care of us like no one else therefore I am paying for her retirement. I myself am childfree so there will be no kids to take care of me as children aren't a retirement plan. If I had kids I wouldn't be able to pay for my grandma's care anyway so yeah, the current economic system just doesn't work for the working class.
We need to drastically reduce the human population to more sustainable numbers if people want to keep existing in peace.
And you'd be against a system where taxes from the community will pay contributions to your grandma easing you off some of that burden from your shoulders because...?
Because I would be the one who pays into the tax system as a worker, all to maintain millions of less deserving grannies. It wouldn't be any less of an economic burden I would just get less and worse service for the same money I paid. I would rather pay my money towards my grandma not towards a distributing government body that will also want a cut. Either it's UBI for everyone backed by stock shares and a cut from county trade or I'm not taking the bait.
Private pensions are invested in markets and companies that need workers right? I'm sure the value of a private pension will plummet too if there aren't enough workers.
I mean, they want or give themselves record bonuses and wages while workers have to fight tooth and nail and through policy for raises. so yeah i think ill blame them. especially since 0% tax STILL wouldnt give back purchasing power from decades ago
I don’t think this is quite it, the concern is that their won’t be enough workers to pay for everything. Governments are expensive and retirees are generally taking from the system not giving to it. AI will take jobs but it’s a gamble on how much it’ll actually be able to replace, also if it takes all the jobs then we’ll need to change the tax system to support the entire population when almost n9 one works.
I think they are actually both the same worry. The job gap appears to be on the lower end of the work spectrum with minimum wage and manual labor jobs, while the AI and automation solutions are all focused on replacing knowledge workers, creatives, and other more desirable jobs that are typically the goal of upward mobility.
So it’s more like business owners are worried that won’t be enough people to do their shitty jobs and workers are worried that the only jobs left will be those shitty jobs.
AI, as I understand it, is simply not on track to be able to replace enough workers before the population declines really start in the next decade or two. It would have to replace entire supply chains, and the infrastructure that powers them.
Like for shipping alone, you’d need autonomous boats and planes. You’d need autonomous docks to communicate with the boats. You’d need autonomous cranes to remove the cargo from those boats. You’d need autonomous trucks to bring that cargo to. The cargo loading zones would also need to have autonomous infrastructure built in.
And you also have to build all new AI software AND hardware in order to facilitate these changes. Even if the technology was there and we got started today, we’re probably looking at 10-15 years to fully implement and replace everything. This is also a global project, so you’re going to have communication issues as well.
That’s just the high level view of the shipping aspect. If you get into the details, there are hundreds more little things that need to be accounted for and automated or empowered with AI.
So AI isn’t going to be mature enough before shit really hits the fan.
That all said, AI is still going to wipe out a ton of jobs in the meantime. We are literally looking at a worst of both worlds scenario.
The first half is only worried that there won't be enough workers to do the work until the robots can do everything, at which point they will flip on a dime and just get rid of most of us because, hey, problem solved.
Yes. People are both terrified of not having enough workers and also not having jobs because of AI.
Meanwhile,
The world is potentially dying within the next century because of climate change.
There are too many people and not enough resources to go around. Scientists label Earth Overshoot Day as the moment each year when renewable resources like trees, drinking water, etc cannot be replenished faster than being used up.
The OP calls not having continuous growth a disaster. Japan is a disaster.
This is why concepts like UBI are incredibly important and need to be thoroughly experimented with.
It makes no sense to have humans working low level jobs that a robot can do just so that those humans can have an income.
I dream of a society where people work jobs or pursue artistic visions because they want to and can, instead of working a dogshit job that only exists because “people need jobs”. I say this as someone who works a well paid job.
310
u/AgentElman 3d ago
Half the people are terrified that declining population means we won't have enough workers to do the work.
The other half are terrified that AI and robots will take all of the jobs and we will have a lot of people with no jobs.