Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zyst | Hacker News Reader

There's a phrase that stood out to me:

>“We are falling behind our competitors in health. That is going to impact our productivity; that’s going to take away our competitive edge when it comes to the economy,” Mokdad said. “What we’re doing right now is not working. We have to regroup.”

What's the logic behind this? Out of curiosity. It's a morbid thing I hesitate to say, but from a purely utilitarian view isn't it better for a country— from a macro perspective— if people die as close as possible as they finish their working life and retire?

I might be completely off base there, and this is mostly a request for more information, not saying people should die early. As far as I'm concerned I hope we all live to 200.

View on HN

Death can often be a very slow process.

Sometimes it will cause a worker (and the worker's company) to be less efficient due to health-related issues. Not to mention that caregivers (e.g., family) may also be less efficient by taking time off from work or quitting work all together.

Sometimes people will be put on disability for health reasons before they should need to retire. This is a drag on the welfare system and (often) the economy if they had been a productive member of the workforce.

There is also a potential quality of life issue (both present and expected), but that's not as easy to measure as the previous points. It also has some potentially complex implications that are beyond the scope of this post.

What would be a better scenario, though. Do we not die slowly even if we are older, which also requires more caretaking?

What's the difference between having it happen early and late?

I do agree with the Quality of life issue, though. If I'm a highly skilled worker (And thus have prospects to migrate) And some people in say, a country in Europe, live to see 150 years of age, while in my country on average people live to 70 I'm moving out as soon as humanly possible.

Realistically the gap doesn't grow that large, but I'm using hyperbole to make a point. I might be too dumb to articulate it though.

The issue in the quote is (premature?) death as it relates to economic competitiveness. That is why early -- that is, in working years -- matters more than late.

Late and slow death has its own indirect impact on economic competitiveness, but that is not the focus of the quote, imho.

People often just don't die instantaneously, they get sick and require care this taking up resources. Also, some people don't die but are permanently disabled or others get better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com