Hacker News Reader

A better escape we have is to drastically inflate the limits we have on immigration -- for workers.

Much of the supply of labor shortage that has led to inflation is in the food services, construction, landscaping industries; Of which, the US uses h2b migrant visa to seasonally fulfill some of; but that has led us to competition amongst the states, with a high fee, low local reinvestment rate.

Aging population is a global problem, but I agree this is a solution for wealthy countries. Will it actually happen? Maybe in the U.S, but it seems many other countries are trending anti-immigrant. We will see.

with all the inbred anti-immigrant bigots that make up a large percentage of american society, in this scenario, america's fate is sealed.

> the limits we have on immigration

It works only for rich diverse countries (US, Canada). For countries like South Korea or Japan, it would be painful for those societies to bring in a huge number migrants they need.

> This is my schizo catastrophizing

You misspelled psychopathic.

Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely even see physical labor up close. Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75.

> Another solution is that we kill all old people

I mean, let's be frank. We're talking about killing poor old people. Have you looked at Congress lately?

We need to ask, is our economic system here to serve the human species, or was the human species put on on this planet to serve our (current) economic system? Since modern capitalism has only existed since the Dutch East India Company, I think the answer is obvious.

>Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75.

I do wonder how this squares with the fact that the average age in the skilled trades is 55, and 57 in farming. I know those jobs are more physically demanding, but I always doubt the extent to which blue collar jobs 'ruin your body'. In my experience, the wise old farts in the trades are in much better health than their compatriots in sedentary roles in the office. There's just more opportunities for young bucks to hurt themselves in the trades if they aren't careful and follow proper safety procedures.

"It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75."

That's how it worked for my grandparent's generation, and likely most others before that. So not really that silly (but still sad). It'd be great to adjust the work so it's not as destructive. I don't think adjusting to earlier retirement isn't really an option based on history (retirement is a recent thing).

Yeah, modern capatism may not be great for society in general. But how does it compare with the prior models, like monarchy? Or even things like socialism? Seems like corruption and human nature ruins even the best theoretical systems.

If you actually look at it, the number of people who were actually able to carry on at a physical job until 75 was always small. That's why people had large families, after all -- they were your retirement plan.

Do you have a source for a number on that? It seems like most of the people in my grandparent's generation worked physical jobs and continued into their 70s. I can see that prior generations maybe took on less physical roles as the next generation took on the more physical farm roles. Still today, we see that Amish tend to have a large number of men working in physical roles at least into their 60s and often times longer.

> my grandparent's generation

But what about the other 3 grandparents?

Sorry, after you did it twice I couldn't help myself.

I would bet people had large families due to lack of available birth control lack of women’s economic independence. At least my grandmothers and great grandmother I asked did not mention retirement when I asked them why they had the number of kids they did.

The quality that disgusts me the most about society is mass apathy. It's so incredibly upsetting that the majority agree that our current systems aren't working and will only get worse with time, but most people just ... accept this?

Now, I'm no different than most people. I am extremely apathetic about our situation as well. However, it's still soul sucking to realize I'm contributing to the path we're on while feeling like there is nothing I can do.

Feels bad :/

Some of it might be apathy. I think a lot is also ignorance. On top of that, there aren't any great solutions being proposed. There are some that might be feasible, but they also seem to be limited in scope. Overall, we have made great strides over the past few generations. With human imperfections, where should the bar to acceptable be set?

It seems like apathy and, for some, I'm sure it is, but I'd wager that for most it's just a matter of making lemonade.

Many Baby Boomers went through something similar in the 1970s when the last of the radical political movements with teeth died down. They retreated into themselves and started viewing the crumbling world around them (e.g., late 1970s NYC) as "beautiful".

It seems human adaptation is just an uncanny ability to roll over.

Modern technology has allowed us to reduce the scarcity of a lot of our daily needs to the point where they're dumped in landfills in order to manufacture scarcity.

Much of the requirement for individual people to remain productive is largely unnecessary. Clothes, fruit, vegetables, medicine, etc.

Its not even theoretical. We just put the value of one's private property(not personal) and Capital over the value of general well being.

> Drastically increasing the retirement age only makes sense to us keyboard jockeys who rarely even see physical labor up close. Data shows that people in physical jobs start to break down physically in their mid 40s. It's silly to think that these people are going to work until they are 75.

They won't have a choice. The smaller the proportion of workers, the fewer resources we have to spread around. We can tax people up to 100% of all the wealth not needed for them to survive, but if communist experiments in the 20th century are any indication, that will only decrease economic prosperity.

> I mean, let's be frank. We're talking about killing poor old people. Have you looked at Congress lately?

No, realistically we're not killing anyone because old people are the most powerful voting block. Their power will only increase as the population ages. More likely we're going to force young people to carry out debt.

> We need to ask, is our economic system here to serve the human species, or was the human species put on on this planet to serve our (current) economic system? Since modern capitalism has only existed since the Dutch East India Company, I think the answer is obvious.

This would be a problem in any economic system. But I want to put it back to you: should young people work to serve the economic system of old people? Should we force young people into servitude by spending money on their behalf? This wasn't a big problem when there weren't many old people, but with an aging population we're demanding a lot more from them.

The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them -- the social security / pensions of retired people and also the wages of working people.

We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted.

> The problem is neither old people nor young people. The problem is the people who have amassed extraordinary amounts of wealth and truly think that it ALL rightfully belongs to them

There are limits to how much you can redistribute. People will simply stop producing taxable income.

> We're not crushing young people with social security taxes. We're crushing them with wages that can't pay their bills, with or without social security taxes deducted.

Never said we were. But if the population continues to age like we see in places like Japan, we will very quickly find ourselves with huge social security bills.

Countries with debt in their own currency don't really have to pay it back. They can print the payments, at the cost of cutting the value of the currency by about half, through a period of intense inflation.

But only once. After that, nobody will lend to them, at least not at reasonable interest rates.

But if done intentionally, with a warning to the citizens that from here on, taxes will have to pay for expenses, it is quite doable for a country like the US to get out of almost any debt trap, at the expense of bond holders.

Printing money without a plan to repay it would be a disaster. Better to just adjust policy.

Today, yes. Bug if debt-to-GDP reaches 400% before the budget is balanced, it's better to just do what basically amounts to defaulting on it.

Keep in mind, there are very few signs that the US is going to balance the budget anytime soon.

At some point, the debt will be so high that lenders lose confidence, especially for 30-year or even 20-year maturity bonds, and at that point, there is very little time left to turn the ship.

>No one working, everyone consuming

How would this even be possible, in an economy that is roughly 80% services? All there is to "consume" is the output of someone else's labor. If nobody is working, there is nothing to consume.

Of course it's possible. "No one" is hyperbolic, and just means that demand is far greater than supply. That means inflation. Now Grandma can't afford a plumber.

> Another solution is that we kill all old people

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJn_DBTnrY&t=835s