Comment on Anon isn't worried about population decline
Serinus@lemmy.world 4 days ago
We just never get to retire. workers per retiree over time
By 2030 it’s projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.
What does „retiree per worker“ graphs always fail to mention is how productivity increased over the same period.
Those two workers today produce about as much as 8 did in the 50s so supporting the retirees should in fact be easier today, not harder.
That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately.
That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately
Yes, because your wages go to said retirees. Who do you think owns all the companies not increasing your wages?
Sounds like everyone shouldn’t have kids then so they dont have to go through the burden of caring for douchebags.
Good idea, but then let’s get rid of the concept of retirement too.
Why did it increase in the 90s and stabilize for a decade?
People forget how much was going right in the 90s. Boomers were in their prime working years, paying into Social Security instead of collecting it. Women’s participation in the workforce had hugely expanded. Also a decade of strong economic growth and job creation meant more people working, lower unemployment, and more money going into the system. It allowed the US to briefly reverse the decades-long decline in the number of workers supporting each Social Security beneficiary, and then kept that ratio stable for a while. Obviously some of that was demographic luck, but the Clinton economy was actually putting people to work.
Serinus@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Seems like it’d be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go.
Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
Build more housing so that houses are more affordable, bring on the 4 day work week.
Expensive houses just funnels more money into the hands of banks and landlords without providing any benefit to society.