This being a biology journal, I was kinda expecting an even larger perspective. If you look at how biological ecosystems work, just about every creature reproduces way more than what is sustainable. Someone did a calculation that if the first cell had kept splitting at the rate it had, there'd be a ball the size of the solar system by now or something crazy like that.
The reason it doesn't happen of course is that you run into resource crises. Any species that keeps doubling at their natural rate will run out of food, or it becomes food for others.
Coming back to society, it's as if we just aren't prepared for a shrinking population. It's hard to make preditions against a variable that's always gone one way, but is showing sign of turning. How much of the economy is really just size? What's gonna happen when that reverses?
This will probably be a major political theme that lingers in many advanced nations. Fewer young people to work, but also fewer votes than the people who benefit. Immigration as a potential cure, but for how long, and at what cost? I tend to think it's already a kind of underlying dynamic, just not the one that appears in the headlines so often.
As long as the pie is increasing in size, people can tolerate getting a proportionally smaller slice. If the pie stops growing, that becomes untenable.
I think the answer is somewhere in wealth taxes, which are much harder to implement effectively than income taxes, but will be necessary for redistribution in a world with static or declining incomes.
To put that into context with population pyramids, to support the old people, young people will need to get a bigger slice of the pie. That means less wealth being locked into untaxed distribution schemes that pass down generationally, whether it's trusts or corporations.
In every society where some people are working ("the young") and some people are not ("the old"), and everybody is consuming, the young people have to work for the old. There is no way around that. There are not much goods or services that you can store for more than a year. They young always have to do the work. You can think of different schemes how you transfer the buying power to the old (taxes, dividends, interests, rent, ...) but in the end of the day, some are working, some are not and the young always have to do the work for the old.
Productivity has been rising decade after decade - the younger generation produces more than enough to sustain even a larger older generation. Much of that wealth production is re-routed to those at the top of the wealth pyramid. Moving even some of that back downwards would do a lot to resolve these problems.
This is a consequence of an increasing labor force. If productivity rises but there are more workers available than are necessary to produce the goods demanded, the price for labor will fall, and all of the gains of this productivity will be accrued by capital. If there are fewer workers available than are needed to man the machines, the wages paid to those workers will increase, and all the productivity gains will be captured by labor.
The plight of the American worker tracks very well with how many of them there are (modulo globalization, which makes the plight of the worker track with how many there are globally). The golden years of the 1950s coincided with the depopulation and destruction of capital stock following WW2; this made America the only country that still had productive industry, which brought in a good deal of global money that could be shared with the G.I. and Silent generations. 70s stagflation and 80s malaise coincided with the entry of baby boomers into the workforce and household-forming years: with more laborers, wages fell, and with more consumers for a fixed number of goods, prices rose. The late 80s recovery and 90s boom coincided with Gen-X and the retirement of the G.I. Generation: with few incoming workers and lots of outgoing ones, wages rose. The post-2000 malaise coincides with the entry of Millenials into the workforce: the world population has grown from 4.5 billion in the early 80s to 7.7 billion today, and all those young people are entering the workforce now.
It's likely that as the Boomers die off and the Homelander generation (post-2001 & tiny) enters the workforce, wages will rise naturally and capital prices will fall significantly.
It's important to keep in mind that the older generation that needs to be supported right now and the generations before had plenty of kids and the problem does not exist at the moment - it's more about what happens if the trends holds and the generations that are at well below replacement rates start retiring.
Also, most of the wealth held by the top of the wealth pyramid is not what has already been produced, but merely claims on future production. I doubt people at the top of the wealth pyramid consume all that much as a fraction of the society's productive capacity - either they are holding onto existing claims or creating new claims by making investments that would increase the future productive capacity.
So if there was a production gap and the youth is not able to support the older generation due to the lack of productive capacity, moving the wealth downwards would exacerbate the gap, because you'd be redirecting some of the productive capacity towards consumption rather than investment.
Wealth governs the distribution of product, not the quantity of product. Reassign 100% of the wealth of the infirm to the able, and discover that the labor of the able does not change.
>but in the end of the day, some are working, some are not and the young always have to do the work for the old.
Well, we're forgetting the very young (0-18) who the older work for them, to house, nurture, feed, educate, and usually spoil them...
So there's that. It's not like the young come from nowhere and suddenly have some responsibility to work for the old when nobody never did anything for them...
>This is not about responsibility or morale, but just about the pure economics of life.
Well, the "pure economics of life" for humans include that for human life to be sustainable, we should tend to the young (for a culturally adjusted 18 years or so), and that we should tend to the older (65+) too.
Being framed as a "ponzi scheme" targeting the young at the point they enter the workplace, hides that fact that a lots of money and parental energy (and even more time unaccounted for as money) were given to said young before that point...
It's not exactly a "ponzi scheme" if Ponzi and his money, time, and effort is the only reason you're alive and working now...
That only exacerbates the fundamental problem: smaller working cohort, larger dependant cohort.
Resource consumption per capita of youth is less than elderly (especially healthcare), and generally reduces with time (excepting education). Youth lasts only 15-20 years before gainful employment can begin. Old age stretches from 65 onwards. Early retirees may spend 50 years or more "retired".
Which with average life expectancy is close to 15-20 years of remaining life. E.g tons don't make it to 70 even.
>Early retirees may spend 50 years or more "retired"
Early retirees are usually people who saved money / hit the business jackpot, not people who expect some others to work to pay them a pension.
We're also forgetting that (at least in civilized pension systems) retirees at 65 had 30-40 years of paying taxes (along with the employers part) for their pension scheme.
Well that's if you don't increase efficacy which we are well on our way of doing. This doesn't strike me as such a large issue since "the old" are still consuming and therefore spending capital. Automation and efficacy increase (through tech) will more then make up for the population discrepancies as long as there is enough capital to warrant the investment.
They are consuming, but nowhere near enough to spread the wealth around. And the wealthy vote themselves laws that let them keep more of their unearned wealth.
Look at what’s happened to California under prop 13 [1]. What was supposed to protect little old ladies from losing their homes due to rising property taxes has turned into a commercial real estate bonanza. People are making money hand over fist renting rooms at exorbitant prices to young people, and paying next to nothing in property taxes for the privilege. Meanwhile, a young person needs a large six to seven figure income just to afford a home in the Bay Area, and then their property taxes are insanely high, forcing them to subsidize their commercial real estate neighbours. It’s ridiculously unfair.
Speaking as someone who recently was finally able to buy in the Bay Area, repealing prop 13 would screw everyone in my position and do nothing to make real estate more available.
I agree that it is ‘unfair’ but making it more ‘fair’ would just harm all the people who have actually made it work for them.
Most people who own property in the Bay Area are not predatory landlords.
> Speaking as someone who recently was finally able to buy in the Bay Area, repealing prop 13 would screw everyone in my position
No it wouldn't; if you've recently brought, your property taxes would go down. What it would mean is that the people who bought in the '80s who would have to step up so that you both paid the same, rather than you carrying them.
> and do nothing to make real estate more available.
Of course it would: it would force a lot of people (particularly older non-working people) to sell up, making a lot more housing available to those who have a greater need/desire to live there now but aren't fortunate enough to have moved in decades ago.
> I agree that it is ‘unfair’ but making it more ‘fair’ would just harm all the people who have actually made it work for them.
The first-order effect would be zero-sum, but the current market distortion leads to inefficient allocation at second order. So levelling the playing field would be a net gain.
> Most people who own property in the Bay Area are not predatory landlords.
People who benefit from prop 13 are at best getting an unearned windfall.
> Why would property taxes go down? The property value has gone up.
Assuming we want the total tax take to stay the same (changing that is a separate question), people who currently have a higher-than-average tax:property value ratio (which is people who bought recently) would have their tax bill go down (and people who currently have a lower-than-average tax:property value ratio would have their tax bill go up).
> At least you are being honest that the goal here is to force people out of their homes so that people with tech jobs can buy them.
In the same sense that other people are currently "forced" to rent forever and pay extra taxes to support idle homeowners, sure. Saying that I'm not allowed to own a house in San Francisco is just as cruel as saying that you're not allowed to own a house in San Francisco, whether or not you happen to have lived there for some number of years already.
> But of course nobody is saying this because nobody took anything years ago.
> They bought it from someone who wanted to sell it to them.
I'm not proposing to take anyone else's house either. They are more than welcome to keep their house (as long as they keep paying their fair share of taxes, obeying the law, and doing all the other things that we expect of decent citizens). They still have a free choice over whether to sell their house or not. Once we remove the unfair subsidy they get because they happened to buy it a long time ago, a lot of them are likely to decide that the house is worth less to them than what they could sell it for, that's all.
> I am not saying you should pay twice as much property tax as someone living in an equally valuable house.
> I am saying that increasing property taxes as prices go up is confiscatory and immoral.
How do you reconcile those two statements? If you're saying that people should be taxed based on the price they purchased that then you're saying exactly that I should pay twice as much as certain other people living in houses that have the same value. Of course property prices change; taxing everyone based on their current house value is equitable and nondiscriminatory. Taxing based on the price when they happened to buy is neither.
> I am saying that anyone who wants to use this mechanism to displace people so that they can acquire their property is a thief.
We live in a society, it's everyone's responsibility to pay their taxes. The thieves are the people who want to avoid paying their fair share so that they can keep living above their means.
> If the city needs to raise revenue it should be via income, or a per person charge for services. Other countries do this and it works just fine.
They do not work "just fine". Poll taxes are immensely regressive. Income taxes disincentivize productive work. Land is the one thing we can't produce more of when prices rise - those hoarding it should absolutely be shouldering a corresponding tax bill.
Land prices rise as a result of people wanting to buy the land and competing with other people with means to buy it.
You are proposing that the taxes of someone who owns a house should be based on the ability of other people to buy it.
Nothing could be more regressive than that. It is absolutely discriminatory and in no way equitable.
Living in the house you bought for yourself is clearly not ‘hoarding’. It seems like you are getting emotional now.
There is nothing discriminatory about basing taxes on the purchase price. If you buy now, you will benefit from prop 13 the same as anyone else.
Also, using taxes to force people out of their houses as you propose, is a terrible idea for the development of the economy since it disincentivizes the development of productive industry in other less developed areas.
> You are proposing that the taxes of someone who owns a house should be based on the ability of other people to buy it.
> Nothing could be more regressive than that. It is absolutely discriminatory and in no way equitable.
How so? The tax rate on a given house should be independent of who is living in it. Two people living in identical houses (in equivalent locations) should be paying identical taxes. That's obviously the fair approach.
> Living in the house you bought for yourself is clearly not ‘hoarding’.
It easily can be, if you're living in a bigger house than you need, or living in a prime job area when you're not working. Hoarding always means keeping hold of something you bought for yourself so there's no contradiction there.
> There is nothing discriminatory about basing taxes on the purchase price. If you buy now, you will benefit from prop 13 the same as anyone else.
I didn't have the opportunity to buy 40 years ago because I wasn't alive then. I didn't have the opportunity to buy 10 years ago because my parents weren't rich enough to pay my deposit. Prop 13 is very much age/class discrimination in practice.
> is a terrible idea for the development of the economy since it disincentivizes the development of productive industry in other less developed areas.
Subsidising development in cheap areas is just as distortionary and counterproductive as subsidizing development in expensive areas. The best taxes - and land value tax is well known among economists as the perfect tax - don't distort in either direction, leaving the free market to get on with efficient allocation.
The tax rate on the house being proportional to what other people would like to pay for it now vs what you actually paid is clearly discriminatory.
“If you are living in a bigger house than you ‘need’ or if you are living in a prime job area and not working”
I see, so you have decided that homes should temporarily allocated to those who are working in the area, and should be sized according to a political opinion about what they ‘need’.
A segregated society where we have worker only zones and industry is more and more concentrated in the places it is already established is a grotesque, quasi-fascist dystopia.
This is what you are advocating for? At least your position is consistent.
If you buy now, over time you will benefit from prop 13 in the same way that everyone else has. In 40 years you’ll have the benefit that people who bought 40 years ago now have.
> The tax rate on the house being proportional to what other people would like to pay for it now vs what you actually paid is clearly discriminatory.
How is it discriminatory? It has nothing to do with who you are (indeed one doesn't have to know anything about you to figure it out), which is the opposite of discriminatory.
> I see, so you have decided that homes should temporarily allocated to those who are working in the area, and should be sized according to a political opinion about what they ‘need’.
Better that than allocating them by whoever first called dibs. There's a reason we believe most goods should be brought and sold at a market price that's the same for everyone, not different prices for different people.
Do you acknowledge that there's such a thing as a luxury home? I would rather people who just want somewhere to live near where they work had a level playing field with people who want to live in a mansion they don't need. (I'm not even arguing for favouring the workers, just for stopping subsidising the mansion-owners). There's nothing wrong with spending your honestly-earned money on luxuries, but you shouldn't get a tax break for it, particularly when your luxury is someone else's necessity.
> A segregated society where we have worker only zones and industry is more and more concentrated in the places it is already established is a grotesque, quasi-fascist dystopia.
A society where people can't move into the places where the jobs are is far more all of those things (not being able to move freely was one of the biggest criticisms of the Soviet Union; we called ourselves a free country in contrast, precisely because people were free to move wherever they wanted) - and that's what we have at the moment by subsidising the lucky few who happen to live in those places at present.
> If you buy now, over time you will benefit from prop 13 in the same way that everyone else has. In 40 years you’ll have the benefit that people who bought 40 years ago now have.
By that logic it's fine to refuse to hire over-50s because 30 years ago they had the same benefit that people who are currently 20 have. But actually we still consider that age discrimination, because it is.
No the age discrimination analog is flawed - you are just failing to recognize that people who benefitted from buying 40 years ago are benefiting from 40 years of holding an investment.
You are free to benefit in exactly the same way, and just like any investment it will take 40 years to reap.
40 years ago these people were in the same position as you are. There is no difference.
As to defending the allocation of housing to workers and displacement of the non-working, I applaud you for being honest about your position.
Of course you use a false dichotomy.
People are in fact free to move wherever they want. They just can’t force others out of their homes because they think they deserve them more.
If it is not economical for more workers to come to where the jobs are, then the jobs will come to the workers because corporations need to expand.
You have the same opportunity as those 40 years ago did - go and live somewhere that is cheaper and where industry is going to develop because the economic conditions are right.
That way you too can benefit from economic growth over the next 40 years the way the people you envy have.
> you are just failing to recognize that people who benefitted from buying 40 years ago are benefiting from 40 years of holding an investment.
No, that's in addition. No-one is saying that if someone bought a $400k house for $50k 40 years ago they should have to pay back the unearned $350k; they get to keep their investment gains and be just as well off as someone who buys a $400k house today. They just shouldn't get an extra tax break on top of that.
> People are in fact free to move wherever they want. They just can’t force others out of their homes because they think they deserve them more.
If charging a market price is "force" then people are being forced to not move to places where they want. Again, the mechanism that would move people out is exactly the same mechanism that currently stops other people moving in.
> You have the same opportunity as those 40 years ago did - go and live somewhere that is cheaper and where industry is going to develop because the economic conditions are right.
That's the opposite of what happened. 40 years ago those people moved into the very centre of the city, not to somewhere cheap. And they had that opportunity because the city wasn't filled up with 40 years' worth of moochers with tax breaks.
People moved in to the center of the city not because it was filled with ‘moochers’, but because people wanted to sell their homes.
Why? Because the city wasn’t considered attractive because the economy hadn’t created a huge demand for housing and a lot of rich people to compete for it.
It wasn’t tax breaks that made the city cheap. It was that the tech boom hadn’t happened yet.
If you )o somewhere where the economic growth is at an earlier stage, and you can benefit in the same way, while helping to improve the economic health of the country.
> People moved in to the center of the city not because it was filled with ‘moochers’
It wasn't filled with moochers then, it is now. That's my point.
> It wasn’t tax breaks that made the city cheap. It was that the tech boom hadn’t happened yet.
SF wasn't especially cheap, and in any case there's nothing particularly virtuous about moving in or out of somewhere at fair market price (if you move somewhere because it's cheap, you already got your reward for that: it was cheap). The people who happened to move in at a particular time got lucky that the tech boom happened to happen in a particular place, and raked in a massive unearned windfall on their property values. But apparently that isn't enough for them; they continue to massively underpay their property taxes as well.
> If you )o somewhere where the economic growth is at an earlier stage, and you can benefit in the same way, while helping to improve the economic health of the country.
I can benefit from house prices going up as they normally do, sure. I probably can't benefit from a substantial extra subsidy to my property taxes on top of that, because most of the country (rightly) does not have a Prop 13.
Corrections are part of any economy with a boom/bust cycle. Things are good for you, bad for us now. Repealing P13 would reverse that dynamic. Hopefully we regress to a livable and sustainable mean.
You make the assumption that I’m some kind of boomer who’s somehow benefitted from buying decades ago.
Repealing prop 13 in order to take peoples homes away through confiscatory taxation so that people with high incomes can buy them is not a correction. It is theft.
Why not work somewhere else where you can afford a home? That is the real ‘correction’.
You own a home. Your housing payments aren't being thrown into a void.
>Repealing prop 13 in order to take peoples homes away through confiscatory taxation so that people with high incomes can buy them is not a correction. It is theft.
So is rent-seeking, if we have such a low bar for "theft." Really, it's just society deciding where its priorities lay: people who need housing for practical reasons, or the people privileged enough to use their housing as an investment vehicle?
>Why not work somewhere else where you can afford a home? That is the real ‘correction’.
Now you're getting emotional. That's not a market correction at all.
Market corrections are about supply and demand being balanced.
There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to.
The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation.
>The solution to the Bay Area housing crisis is for employers to establish operations in places where housing is cheaper - not for housing to be confiscated from earlier purchasers through confiscatory taxation.
It's actually both.
>There is nothing emotional about suggesting that people choose to live and work in places they can afford to.
It is, within context. The proposal in question might have a net negative outcome for you, but be positive for the community. Further, while the status quo has full-time workers living on the street, readjusting this regulation and allowing a market correction to take place would presumably not ruin you, but simply force you to move. (Hey, you suggested it for others, should be good enough for you too.) In the end, though, you're against something that would ultimately be a boon for the area and is at least tenable for you. That's an emotional argument.
The fact that I disagree with you doesn’t make my argument emotional.
I did not suggest forcing anyone to move. I suggest that if you cannot afford a home, you should go somewhere you can, rather than stealing homes from people who have bought them already through confiscatory taxation.
There is no reason why people need to be displaced from their homes if jobs are created elsewhere.
If people in full time employment are unable to afford housing, they are being paid too little, and should not have accepted the job, thus forcing employers to offer more.
You have stated that you think people should be driven out of their homes even if work can be moved elsewhere. (“The solution is both”).
That seems pretty reprehensible, and I’m curious why you think it?
Forget about money for a moment, think of just physical world.
The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old. If one young person has to support two old, their quality of life will decline no matter what the fiscal arrangements are. Sure, technology improves efficiency, but not 300%
That's a bold claim, which industrial process apart from computing and lighting has efficiency improving anywhere near 300%?
Gains have been marginal in air travel,, oil extraction, heating, steel, food and concrete production. Many of these are near the physical limits of possible efficiency.
No, obviously not. But the point is that there is plenty of productivity to go around—the benefits of it just aren't available to most people.
So, if we were to reduce the ability of the people at the very top to siphon away 99% of the productivity gains we've seen over the past 40 years, we would have more than enough food, clothing, and shelter for everyone, with enough margin that people could also work shorter hours without losing the ability to provide for everyone.
The cost of that is that a very small percentage of the population can no longer have massively extravagant lifestyles.
>The point is, the young would have a higher quality of life if they did not have to support the old.
The older two, if they didn't have to support the young, e.g. not have babies, or just send them to work on farms at 6 years old...
Are the "young" supposed to get raised for free from 0 to 18 or even 0-25 or more in these days, and then coast along, with no responsibility of paying back to society for that?
This is not a moral statement, it's a matter of physical difficulty:
If you have 4 siblings, supporting your ageing parents is quite easy
If you are a single child, supporting two ageing parents can be challenging
If you alone had to support 4 ageing people (like someone who decided not to have kids), while also having to meet your work commitments, that would probably be very difficult.
> In every society where some people are working ("the young") and some people are not ("the old"), and everybody is consuming, the young people have to work for the old.
You are missing one big thing: productivity increasing. Since I'm born in 1988, the GDP of my country (France) doubled (adjusted for inflation), assuming GDP is not totally meaninglessness, that means that we need much less «young» to sustain the entire society with the standard of living we had in 1988 (which was a pretty decent one by all standards).
> There are not much goods or services that you can store for more than a year.
That argument might have seemed less ridiculous before the invention of money. It's this amazing thing: a medium of exchange that can be stored indefinitely and then used to purchase almost any good or service. Quite a few people even tout money as the solution to every problem of incentives or matching supply to demand, though I think that's taking the idea a bit too far.
Money, or for that matter nearly all wealth, are claims on future production - for these claims to be worth something, others have to work. Money and other financial assets can solve a problem for yourself because the rest of the society would then effectively owe you part of what it produces but the value of these claims is contingent on the production.
In the real economy, what matters is production, investment and consumption - money is just a social construct designed to incentivize people to do consume/invest/produce the right amounts of the right things.
That's all well and good, but it's also a complete diversion from the original "not much goods or services that you can store for more than a year" point. If I wanted to get into a more general discussion of the efficient market hypothesis, I wouldn't do it on HN.
I am talking about that exact point - "not much goods or services that you can store for more than a year" and elaborating why that is an important thing to understand. The point of the GP was that the goods and services consumed by those that don't work have to be provided by those that do. A lot of people don't understand this because individuals can save through money and other financial instruments almost as though they are storing goods and services that can be consumed in the future.
But this analogy fails at a larger scale - an entire generation can't just save up enough while they work and expect to be provided for in retirement because what they saved up are just claims on future production - their consumption still has to come from the production provided by future generations. Their claims cannot and will not automatically cause the excess production to occur.
Now this is a purely hypothetical problem and we're arguably in a world with the opposite problem (too much productive capacity, too many people trying to save and not enough demand). Though arguably even this problem is due to too many people to save up to prepare for the other scenario, decades before it happens.
Farmer A produces 10 tons of grains and sells them for $100 each. One year later Farmer A buys a new tractor and produces 20 tons of grains and sells them for $50 because of fierce competition. People decide to save $50 instead and the farmer still sells only 10 tons. 10 ton grains have spoiled because no one bought them. 10 years later people have grown old and use their savings to buy grains. The population is growing so demand is growing as well.
Farmer A says I only have 10 tons of grains but 20 buyers are coming to my farm. If I raise my prices to $100 then I can still sell all 10 tons because a lot of people have saved up money. The end result? Some people have no grains and others have to pay through the nose because 100 tons of perfectly good grains that could have been sold have spoiled instead.
How can we model the spoilage of goods and therefore of the loss of value of money that represents a claim to these goods? With inflation. How can we encourage manufacturers to maintain production capacity even in the future? With inflation.
Actually, it's the idea that money solves the problem that is the deceptively ridiculous idea. It confuses the monetary economy for the real economy, which is, confusingly, one of the most widespread popular illusions and false popular beliefs in a modern economy.
Its a religion complete with large structures to worship. In stead of observing links in a chain we pretend it is only finance that makes things happen.
The idea seems that if one has coupons there will always be a sucker to do the work for you, in exchange for the coupons. There will eventually be a final sucker holding onto the coupons: No fiat-currency ever survived.
I always wondered, why not a stronger inheritance tax instead of a wealth tax? It would seemingly accomplish the same thing but seems fairer since the heirs didn’t earn the money in the first place.
To head off the main critique. I think either tax could be equally gamed by the rich.
I don’t necessarily support either but I’ve been wondering why Inheritance taxes aren’t really being considered.
There was an interesting example of this when I took a course modern Middle East history in college.
I forget the exact time period, but basically in pre-modern times Islamic law said that you weren't allowed to pass wealth onto your children. To get around this, the wealthy would found charities and give their kids cushy jobs running them. Even though a lot of the charity's money was presumably routed to giving the kids a lavish lifestyle, this system still resulted in the Middle East having the best social welfare system of the time period.
> To head off the main critique. I think either tax could be equally gamed by the rich.
That is not the main critique. The main critique (IMO at least) is that people earn money to, among other things, give it to their children. Taxing that is, in some people's view of the world, a) a disincentive to work and b) morally wrong.
It is incompatible with our human rights to eliminate inherited fortunes. The only way we can achieve that goal is by separating children from their parents from birth and letting them live in randomly chosen boarding schools until they become adults and even then we must forbid them from ever meeting their parents lest they inherit an unfair advantage. There is also a technical limitation: Children always inherit the DNA of their parents so even with the utmost care it is inherently impossible to correct this injustice.
By the way there is a reason why my answer is so extreme: inheritance starts as soon as you are born, not just when your parents die
Australia is an interesting example of the politics of inheritance taxes. We used to have them until a conservative state government abolished them in 1978, which triggered a race to the bottom – abolition in all other states. It’s easier to move states than countries, especially if you have no job or children in school, and the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose an inheritance tax of its own. The abolition campaign was assisted by using the term “death duties” and framing the tax as a punishment for those grieving the loss of a family member. I think the idea is still extremely unpopular as a result.
I would love an inheritance tax. Even a 100% inheritance tax, on anything more than zero dollars.
Of course I don't really stand to inherit anything significant, so it's super easy for me to support.
Inheritance is one of those areas where people's values and what they'd support in practice tend to diverge, according to their incentives. (Same goes for California Proposition 13, incidentally).
It seems a very anti-human thing to say that what you have worked for your whole life, that you've already paid tax on all along the way, cannot be given to your own offspring.
It strikes at the heart of what it is to be alive, and the relationship of the individual and the state.
What we need is an inheritance tax on all of the wealth that people didn’t work for. Unearned wealth in the form of real estate and capital appreciation. It’s fine for the hard-working middle class person to pass on their hard-earned home to their child. It’s not so fine if the house has gone up in value 10000% since the time they purchased it.
I don't get it. If you problem is too low capital gains taxes then just say that outright instead of hiding behind an inheritance tax that doesn't even achieve your goals.
There's a big difference between putting your money on the line with a startup you founded and just having the house you live in appreciate over several decades.
As a human, this doesn’t resonate with me at all. I know that many people disagree with inheritance taxes, but I would prefer if my views weren’t characterised as inhuman, since they are motivated by a desire to help people who inherit nothing.
You are talking about trying to interpose in the passing of the fruits of one's labours over a lifetime to one's offspring. Trying to do the best for your offspring is a very deep drive and, while one can make perfectly good logical and cerebral arguments against inheritance at a societal level, you're going to run up against deep and very natural human (and animal) feelings.
You can ask people to transcend those, but don't be surprised when you find people object on an emotional level.
And the level of state ownership of the individual that such a tax implies is very uncomfortable too. I am happy to contribute to the state, but it neither owns me, nor is more important than my own family.
It’s strange that people seem to have assumed that I want to confiscate all inheritances. I just think inheritance taxes should form some part of an efficient and fair tax system, as they do in many countries, but not mine. Do you feel that inheritance taxation implies a greater form of “state ownership” than the compulsory taxes on labour imposed during your lifetime? For me, it feels like the opposite.
> It’s strange that people seem to have assumed that I want to confiscate all inheritances.
Not really in the context of the post I replied to up-thread -
> "I would love an inheritance tax. Even a 100% inheritance tax, on anything more than zero dollars"
I know that wasn't you, but the subject of 100% inheritance tax was definitely raised.
> Do you feel that inheritance taxation implies a greater form of “state ownership” than the compulsory taxes on labour imposed during your lifetime?
Yes, very much. I pay my way during my life, but what I build with what's left should be mine to disperse to my heirs, if any.
I'm not completely opposed to all inheritance taxes either, I think there's probably a balance somewhere, and it's in society's interest to (for example) break multi-generational acquisition of vast amounts of land that result in effective aristocracy.
>if my views weren’t characterised as inhuman, since they are motivated by a desire to help people who inherit nothing.
Is this some kind of joke? Who on earth inherits nothing? You've received a body and genetic material from your parents. You have inherited a geographic location from your parents. You have most likely inherited food from your parents. You have most likely inherited an education from your parents. Your parents have passed on so many things onto you before they have died and you call that nothing? Your views are clearly inhuman because they are considering some sort of pseudo life form that exists in a vacuum with no support from anything. The reality is that you start inheriting things from your parents the moment you are born.
If you are truly worried about someone inheriting money while others get nothing why are you complaining about something that usually happens when people are in their 40s and 50s and have already received a substantial advantage from their parents during childhood? You can't undo that injustice after the fact. It's too late, the rich kids who are now middle aged are already ahead of you with 100% inheritance tax or without.
If all of those things are “inheritance,” I’m talking about something more specific – the legal process of reassigning the property rights of deceased people. The state is necessarily involved in this, since it defines and enforces property rights. Different states have different policies ranging from no inheritance tax, to the status quo in the US and the UK, to punitive taxes intended to radically redistribute wealth, to the total abolition of inheritances. We can have a reasonable discussion about changing the status quo at the margin without assuming the implementation of full communism.
They are inhuman, because you want to impose your will and your morality onto others. You are free to help as many people you want with your own wealth.
What would really rally popular opposition is the massive massive amounts of spending on propaganda (advertising, etc whatever you want to call it) to galvanize the American public to oppose something like this.
We live in a democracy, but elites still have enough say that something like an 100% inheritance tax is effectively off the table.
I think the problem could arise in the case of things like heirlooms or homes that have been in the family for years.
I think you might also need to write the law so that people could choose to inherit debt on the same terms as their parents. Otherwise, couldn't the bank demand a higher interest rate as a way to force someone off of their property? How does this sort of thing work currently?
Realistically, a law like this (though it would never happen) would be something along the lines of 100% tax on inheritances over 10 million dollars.
> I think you might also need to write the law so that people could choose to inherit debt on the same terms as their parents.
I assumed that this was already the case.
quick e: Yeah, seems like this is already law "Under federal law, lenders must allow family members to take over a mortgage when they inherit residential property"
People can't eat dollars. Dollars can't provide health care services. Better allocation of dollars will help in the near-term but the problem noted in TFA is there will eventually not be enough workers to support the non-workers.
It’s still possible for it to be a problem. Human skills aren’t entirely fungible. If technological disruption continues to increase in pace then we may reach a point where people’s education becomes obsolete before they even finish their degrees.
We could see large scale technological unemployment despite a shortage of labour in a set of ever-changing, highly specialized fields that people only end up in by an extremely lucky guess at the time they declare a major.
I am struggling to think of any part of my formal education, some of which occurred more than 20 years ago, which has been rendered obsolete by technical disruption. I don’t think technology is changing society that quickly.
It takes a whole different kind of reasoning to ponder the big picture. I'm not sure if anyone can do it. All I have is the clue that thinking from your own perspective never works. You get something like: I have money and kids, inheritance tax is bad. I lack money, the tax is good.
But to answer your question: Technical "disruption" is every instance of a thing making your job easier. It will require less skill/training and come with lower pay. Jobs with few, sometimes hard, decisions will benefit from technology. At some point the hard stuff is gone.
Perhaps your job was affected 0.1% in the last decade and the average is 5%. It would be just like 1 in 20 "jobs" vanished without anyone noticing it.
Dollars are how we account for net value provided, and their only value is in society’s collective agreement that tangible goods and services person A provided to B yesterday can be balanced by unlike goods and services A received from C today. They’re literally the debt that society owes the holder to compensate for past services to the society.
It’s not the only system of distributing goods and services to the populace. In theory, a centralized authority could evaluate everyone’s current need and provide it to them directly. This has gone disastrously wrong whenever it’s been tried in practice, though.
Dollars are just a mechanism for transferring wealth. Wealth is stuff, both in the here and now - land and assets - and in the future - wealth-generating machines like people and corporations.
There is no lack of food in the world; there might be a lack of beef, but not everyone needs to get to eat beef. There is no lack of land; there is more than enough land for everyone; it's just scarce in places that have high demand. The problem is distribution.
> There is no lack of food in the world; there might be a lack of beef, but not everyone needs to get to eat beef. There is no lack of land; there is more than enough land for everyone; it's just scarce in places that have high demand. The problem is distribution.
Legitimately baffled to see so many people in this thread asserting that this is not the case.
Also there will never be a lack of beef. This is economics 101 that people have a problem grasping. As the price of beef (or anything) goes up, this is a signal to entrepreneurs to make more of it, until the price goes down again. This is why prices are so important - higher prices lead to more supply, bringing prices down. Thus as demand for beef worldwide increases, producers will supply more of it to meet demand.
Production doesn't always increase as quickly or easily as economics 101 would have you believe. When there is a severe drought, there can be talk about towing icebergs but somehow it doesn't happen. Instead, people cut back on water usage.
You need to look into how production is actually done in each market to understand how quickly producers can respond to changes in demand.
(I'm not going to worry about beef, though, since there are good substitutes.)
I think that food is less of an issue since there is plenty of food other than beef that most people like.
However, although land itself may not be limited in the near term, land that people want is limited. Even if you have the same number of acres of land as the previous generation, if that land is less valuable, then your wealth and quality of life have gone down.
Wealth taxes might be the only way to avoid complete inequality in market-based systems [1]. Especially if the market is not growing for everyone. The wealthy kind of are an endless source of loot because the definition of wealthy is one relative to a median, so you'll either end up with everyone roughly equal in wealth (is that a bad thing?) or, more likely, over time new people will enter and exit the wealthy class due to various advantages and market dynamics so that there is an endless supply.
You should define what you mean by wealth. What does it mean that you will loot wealthy people? Will you eat shares of a company for breakfast? Will you burn cash in stove to warm your house?
Wealthy people control resources. You can take control from them, but it will not create more resources. One, fundamental resource is human labor. This resource will decline in proportion to the total human population whether it will be controlled by wealthy people or not.
Someone will need to physically do the work that needs to be done around old people. And there will be more old people, than there will be young people.
I'm not really following your question. The idea of a wealth tax is pretty straightforward. You take stock of a person's assets, take a percentage of that figure (say 1%) and send them a bill for that dollar amount. How they choose to pay that bill is entirely up to them - they can borrow against their assets, liquidate some of them, or use cash on hand. I don't really see how control of resources factors into the equation.
Control of resources factors into the equation, because dollars are intrinsically worthless. If money have intrinsic value, why not to print 1 000 000 000$ on a bill and give one to everyone? Suddenly everyone would become a billionaire.
Your example is less extreme, but it is still about redistributing control. Redistributing dollars redistributes control of what people do, and how other resources are allocated.
This is related to the article, because moving control of people does not create more people. As population will be getting older, there will be more old people that less young people will need to take care of. This is a fact.
You could argue that redistributing wealth will lead to more efficient control of resources, and so it will make it easier to provide care. But it is still fundamentally about control of diminishing resources and increasing needs.
BTW - I'm Polish and my government tries to literally pay people for having children. Around 30 000$ spread across childhood (take into account that Poles earn a lot less than Americans), and while it put a small dent in fertility rate, the number of children born in Poland is currently lower than before introducing that program.
Yes, it turns out that resources are actually the thing we need to sustain older people.
> Someone will need to physically do the work that needs to be done around old people.
Someone literally is already doing the work that needs to be done for old people. It's just that most of the wealth produced from that work goes to already wealthy people.
It's just that most of the wealth produced from that work goes to already wealthy people.
Exactly that work (social support, and healthcare for seniors) in total numbers consumes resources, not produces them. If it wouldn't be so there would be no need to fund it from taxes.
Frankly, it sounds like you rushed with a randomly chosen slogan to this thead.
You cannot destroy the incentive structure for economic activity (financial rewards) without catestrophic consequences. People don't pull start-up hours so that their neighbors can prosper, they do it for themselves. When you take away the possibility of great rewards, you destroy the incentive to add great value. See the entire history of collectivism.
The conversation is about what's fair incentive structure, correcting it does not amount to its destruction.
Also we do not require people to pull startup hours, and only a minority of the population ever does that. I dont see how that comes into this conversation.
I'm not sure what conversation you're participating in, but the parent comment was flippantly discussing the possibility of taxes so draconain that the GIDI coefficient would approach zero:
"The wealthy kind of are an endless source of loot because the definition of wealthy is one relative to a median, so you'll either end up with everyone roughly equal in wealth (is that a bad thing?) "
In the world advocated for in that comment, with aggressively averaged out income/wealth, there is no incentive to produce value above what is required to reach the average income.
It's a Rawlsian question of "how can we structure incentives such that everybody is better off?"
Now, the metric for "everybody is better off" is still an open problem, but there seem to be near pareto optimal steps we can take, like a high threshold wealth tax.
A 2% wealth tax above a few hundred of millions of dollars doesn't destroy the incentive structure for economic activity, it is disingenuous to suggest it would.
I wouldn't say destroy, but it definitely distorts things and I would prepare for some unintended consequences. For example, it incentivizes those taxed by such a scheme to become citizens of low tax countries like new zealand where there is no wealth tax and even no cap gains tax, renounce their US citizenship, and move there. Peter thiel for example recently got a new zealand citizenship likely to prepare for such an event.
"New policy will have unintended consequences" is a pretty unassailable position and of course not one I disagree with. I don't think you can say apriori that it would cause more harm than good though.
I'm sure that gimmick-y things to avoid wealth redistribution can be legislated on as they have been in the past.
I used to be a chef. In one situation I was payed dividing the number of patrons by number of cooks to cook for 40 people a night. In another situation I payed the same cook for 4 wealthy people on a yacht. It isn't hording. It is how the money is spent.
One owner of a yacht was on the board of his alma mater. The school was required by law to spend equally on women's sports as men't sports. The school had to invest in sports fields which were expensive. He complained about it. Later I worked on a yacht of a person who grew grass. During this time when the schools were required to increase the size of their fields he made a fortune. There are just winners and losers.
But cooking for 40 or 4 are pretty much the same from a labor perspective at that size because recipes scale to 10x easily.
Given that the gap between the rich and poor as a share of GDP has been growing for quite some time, it kind of suggests the rich already do have a "magical, endless source of loot".
> The wealthy aren’t a magically endless source of loot.
True. But that's how they've been treating folks with less advantage since time immemorial. Which tends to work until the exploitation becomes too egregious and lower classes implement a head tax on the wealthy.
Are people not aware how large wealth inequality is at this point? A small marginal wealth tax would generate just absolutely massive amounts of revenue because that is where most money is locked up, not in people's salaried income.
I think it's very revealing that your argument assumes "the wealthy" are a class completely distinct from everyone else, without new people becoming wealthy all the time. Of course, nobody ever admits that they support such an arrangement, even as they oppose the primary means of preventing it.
The other big unknown is what happens to prices when population starts growing.
Much of investing common wisdom is based on the assumption of a steadily growing population. The reason land prices generally rise is because there is a growing number of property buyers chasing a fixed amount of land; this means that the higher-income buyers buy up the land and the overall price rises. The reason stock prices rise is that there are a fixed number of oligopolist markets in the economy (competitive markets like restaurants & hairdressers rarely take investment), and an ever-increasing number of savers looking to earn a return on their money. If you start shrinking the working-age population, the price of land falls dramatically (most people end up inheriting a house from their parents; if they don't, there are several people that inherited multiple houses that they have no use for and are looking to convert into cash). The bargaining power of labor increases dramatically, pushing down corporate profits, but it also means fewer buyers for capital stock and more people trying to sell it to meet their daily existence needs.
The last time this happened (in the wake of Black Death, where 30% of the world's population died), the social system that had been in existence for a millenia collapsed. Serfs were able to demand better wages and working conditions for their labor. Increased bargaining power led to the guild system of the early Rennaissance. Increased saving power led to systems to manage pooled capital (like fractional-reserve banking and the corporation) and to the rise of the mercantile and capitalist classes. The big losers were the landed aristocracy, who found that the land they owned just wasn't worth as much in this new world.
The problem that I see is that in many situations the pie cannot grow or its growth rate is limited. The most obvious example to me is property in major, metropolitan cities in the US.
Wealth taxes are just going to be another way for the top 0.1% to fleece the rest of the top 10% or top 50%, because the rich and powerful will always change the rules to benefit them and to hide their assets.
> Someone did a calculation that if the first cell had kept splitting at the rate it had, there'd be a ball the size of the solar system by now or something crazy like that.
What? That makes no sense as an exponential process. It'd be at least unfathomably larger than the universe by now, not just solar system sized.
Or were they assuming it'd expand constantly only from the surface in all directions?
The grandfather post is probably misremembering something like "it will become a sphere expanding at greater than the speed of light" around the time it is Solar-System-sized.
Depending on how you measure it could be allowed... the diameter of the sphere could grow faster than the speed of light without any component exceeding c because you can grow at near light speeds in two directions.
I think the point was that's the answer given by extrapolation, and its obvoiusly physically impossible. The contradiction with laws of physics is the point.
For starters, anything that large wo ui pd collapse into a black hole.
If you want to know more about this, I highly recommend you to read "Change" by "Graeme Maxton" [1]. A short book based on "The Limits of Growth" [2], a study which came out 1972.
It's very accessible and shows, what will happen if we don't take action now, based on this graph [3].
The OP does not mention that as healthcare improves, the average retirement age increases. This might not be enough to solve the problem of the collapsing pyramid, but it is certainly a factor. 100 years from now, we could be living in a world where people retire at age 80 or 90.
Retirement itself is a 20th century concept that requires a ponzi scheme to work. Unfortunately the family unit that used to support its elderly members unable to support themselves no longer exists in America. Instead we have nursing homes which amount to concentration camps for our elderly. But that’s okay, most of us are good nazis and deny that reality in trade for an uninterrupted screen viewing experience.
Just because people can live longer, doesn't mean the quality of life they live in old age is any better. Which also means they aren't exactly interested in being treated for cancer or going through major surgery in their 60s and 70s. Ofcourse there are Sanders and Trump type energizer bunnies, but they are extreme outliers compared to everyone at the retirement community.
The metrics don't reflect that reality. Most old people (who have dealt with the healthcare system while caring for their parents in old age) know quite well "about the staggering 52% in the last 2 months, and 40% in the last month". Why is anyone paying that cost? For what?
I have a Cardiologist buddy who likes to say performing surgery and treating old people is like keeping a Windows 95 system alive and kicking just because its possible. And most of his patients know it and want easy ways to checkout, but either the Doc is obligated by family/incentivized by the hospital to perform some kind of elaborate treatment. Obviously yhis will change for the simple reason a majority of the Docs and the Patients want the change to happen. On top of that there is the ongoing shift of focus from treatment to prevention.
My larger point is there are always countervailing forces to any trend that is building up. A good case study is the Population Bomb predictions in the 70s - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
97yo neighbor had hip locked due to arthritis. Dr was scared of full hip replacement risks so neighbor lived a year without moving much. He and his wife degraded a bit due to this. Last month they insisted in trying. The man survived the operation, just a week later you can see how more lively he is.
A very good read in the Journal Genome Biology explaining in simple words how Ponzi and Madoff made millions, and then, describing his idea:
Now, the reason you're reading about this here, is that I just realized that life itself is basically a gigantic Ponzi scheme, and the pyramid is dangerously close to collapsing. In the developed world, we have evolved a society in which a relatively small number of old people have many of their needs cared for through the financial contributions of a larger number of much younger people. And that made sense, because for over 12,000 years the age distribution of the human population was, in fact, in the shape of a pyramid, with a huge base of young children rising to a smaller number of teenagers and a still smaller number of young adults, and so on up to a tiny tip of the elderly. But sometime in the 1950s, as the birthrate declined and life expectancy continued to increase, the pyramid started to be shaped more like a column. Within the next 40 years it will become one, and then it will slowly invert.
If the young people's contributions can be largely replaced (or rather, supplemented to the necessary aggregate contribution) by technology, does it really matter? There'd be no question of a ponzi scheme.
You can sort of already see it happening. Productivity is greater than ever. But wages have decoupled from productivity, because it's not human labour, but rather technological inputs that have become the drivers of productivity.
I won't sit here and predict that we'll have healthcare, food & beverage and cleaning robots within a decade and we'll only have leisure left. But we're definitely moving in many small ways to singular superpowered humans, who use tech, that can replace entire shifts of employees.
Replacing half a dozen people doing the same manually.
I mean who am I kidding, there's a billion examples like this. Yes, we still have to do our laundry clean, but we have washing machines that do 95% of the work. We still have to drive our busses, but 95% of bus ticket sales are now automated. At some point we'll probably get to that last 5%, too.
I'm pretty confident that the demographic age inversion will not be as catastrophic as a ponzi scheme falling apart. Because we the productivity of young (and hell, old) people has a technology multiplier that's ever increasing.
I believe you are right. Tech evolution has always been our saving grace, from the discovery of fire, to the invention of agriculture, ships to conquer new worlds, etc. I don't see the end of the world - I see opportunity, lots of it.
Well written in the sense of artful rhetoric perhaps. But it makes no sense at all to talk about demographic issues without accounting for productivity growth and technological progress. This is pure scare mongering.
Imagine what you could have written around 1700 when the share of farmers dropped below 50% if you had ignored productivity growth.
Slightly off-topic, but how should I as a person in late 20s deal with the fear that every piece of evidence suggests my generation (and subsequent ones) will be totally screwed in the future?
Global warming, economic inequality (like property prices), post-truth era, surveillance state and unsustainable social welfare (as explained in OP)?
Bit of wisdom that's an oldie but a goodie: Try not to be preoccupied with the outcomes of things that are outside of your control. Make the best choices you can in the present moment and then be ok with the chips falling where they may.
Future you may live through hard times, suffer, and die - it will be terrible. But that doesn't mean present you should live a life of preoccupation and anxiety. Good people are not (at least in my book) grim ascetic saints. Good people help those around them materially, and they also spread happiness, connection, and pleasure - things that you can only grant to others if you yourself are happy. So, be a happy warrior. If it all ends in disaster and you know you've done your best, you will exit in peace.
Gain some perspective. It's historically a very pretty common idea. People have been writing about how the world is going to shit since they could write, and yet most people's lives have been getting better most of the time. Why do you think you are better equipped at predicting the future than those folks?
> Frank Kermode, in his famous book The Sense of an Ending, elaborated on Cohn’s masterwork by suggesting that actually it’s very common for all of us – especially artists – to feel that we live at the end of times, and that our own demise means all the more to us because we’re not simply dying in the middle of the plot, in medias res. Our lives take on significance because as we decline we notice our society is declining all around us. It’s part of a yearning for narrative significance. As Kermode said, no one can hear a clock saying, as it does, tick tick. What we hear is tick tock. A beginning and an end. We impose this order.
I totally agree with this point, but there is an unavoidable anthropic counterargument, which is for the people who do in fact live in some kind of end times, this is exactly how it will seem to them too. We can't just rely on induction, you still have to at least attempt the deductive due diligence.
Although a good sentiment, the information age coupled with more advanced climate models makes us much better at predicting.
Additionally, it's only been within the last century where we've been technologically capable of causing a mass-extinction level event via nuclear weapons. Here's a fun list of close-calls [0]
Although gaining some perspective is good advice, there is a tacit assumption here that the world just happens and that the tide of history ebbs and flows as it will. Long periods of peace and prosperity happen partly from luck but also partly because key people make them happen. I think it is interesting to consider Bismarck [0] in relation to World War I. We need people like that in high offices trying to promote peace.
Times of stress are exactly the right time for people to stand up and say "wait a minute, I don't see how this can end well - lets try something different" and "if we keep doing this, eventually it will end badly - lets pick a different route". Or even "what exactly are we relying on and what are our options if something happens"; which can be surprisingly useful as a conversation starter. If people can't answer that one in the good times they certainly don't have a plan for when there is a crisis.
We've entered a really dangerous period where the people who remember WWII and the aftermath are dead or dying. A lot of quiet actors were shepherding the post WWII era - the last era of relative peace - and just assuming it works out from now going forward is not a strategy. And that is before even starting on the resources questions about how much of society can be sustained for 3 generations.
> People have been writing about how the world is going to shit since they could write
The first person I know to complain like that in writing was Socrates who lived to see the fall of Athens/Athenian hegemony in 404BC. He wasn't exactly wrong.
> The first person I know to complain like that in writing was Socrates who lived to see the fall of Athens/Athenian hegemony in 404BC. He wasn't exactly wrong.
What? Wasn't he completely, utterly wrong though?
Isn't life today incomparably better in general?
Now, of course, you could argue that for one particular group of people life will never be as good as it used to be at one particular point in history ... but that misses the point - overall humanity is much better off.
Humanity will figure something out. Humanity will be okay.
People in developed world retiring in 20 years from now however will heave zero support from state. Zero return on their investment. Will have to work full-time till they are dead basically to get healthcaretthey need.
That is definitely not end of the world, but neither was original ponzi scheme collapse.
I am still figuring out my retirement and "invest more" might not be the best answer
Where are the statistics proving overall humanity is much better off? I'm doubtful anyone can prove "overall" humanity is better or worse than "x" generation. Also how do we measure it?
> People have been writing about how the world is going to shit since they could write,
Yes, but they've mostly been writing about how the world's going to shit because of those crazy young people, who didn't actually have all that much power (yet). I think it actually is a bit different when the people whose generational mores have messed things up are already in just about every seat in Washington DC and Wall Street (and equivalents elsewhere), and likely to remain so for a while yet. Also, various forms of environmental degradation - including but not limited to climate change - are more objectively harmful and more likely to be permanent than any effects of younger people not going to church (for example). True perspective requires seeing larger things as larger, not just assuming they're a trick of perception.
There also have been plenty of collapses. The difference is that we live now in a world that is way more globalized, connected and we have a far greater impact on the ecosystem.
I'm in my late 20s as well and the replies so far are disgusting me.
I think we should expect that the previous generation won't help us to build the world we would like to see, and we should use all the tools and knowledge we have to change the world, even if it's against the will, interests and "happiness" of the previous generation.
We must organize ourselves, vote, protest, communicate and build towards what we would like to see happening.
Humans don't get to "change the world" to meet our imagination. All actions are contingent upon things we cannot understand. We are constantly acting into an unknowable future. The man-made world (which is a much thinner veneer than we tend to think) is the result of a roiling, chaotic process.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to "make the world better". It only means we have to think about what we are doing and stop believing that we know the solutions (or even the problems). Guess-and-check is the only way to learn things and all parts of that process (the guessing, the implementation, and the checking) are unreliable because of the unlimited contingency of the world. How can you measure the current if you can't step into the same river twice?
Anyway, the kind of utopian protest culture you're talking about is the exact opposite of what is called for. That culture is creating a generation of people who are shockingly easy to manipulate. And they will be manipulated.
As a person of your age I think this way: either we are screwed up so bad that the whole system will need to change and we will have to decouple pensions/healthcare/etc from the normal flow of economy, or else we are not so screwed up as we think and in some way we will be capable of fixing the system without a revolution.
In any way for sure an alternative will be found because else we are condemning a incredible big part of the population (and the voters) to die with nothing and that's not a viable political solution
> else we are condemning a incredible big part of the population (and the voters) to die with nothing and that's not a viable political solution
What makes you think this is untenable? For most of human history, most of the population have been peasants, slaves and serfs who died with nothing or less than nothing, leaving their children indebted to the same masters.
It's entirely possible that the last 200 or so years of relative freedom and prosperity are the unsustainable anomaly.
> In any way for sure an alternative will be found because else we are condemning a incredible big part of the population (and the voters) to die with nothing and that's not a viable political solution
That's the only reasonable thing to do. There are too many humans.
Younger millennials frequently start their public discourse with “how should I as a millennial...”. Always makes me chuckle.
The one thing you should console yourself with is that people are terrible at predicting the future. It will be nothing like you expect or fear. Admittedly, this could be good or bad.
In hindsight, yes, this may sound silly. Originally it was supposed to be "in my late 20s". Will correct it, if it's distracting from the point I make.
I'm a big G.K. Chesterton fan in general, but his Introductory Remarks on the Art of Prophecy (chapter 1 of The Napoleon of Notting Hill) is one of my all-time faves. The opening paragraph:
> The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun.
This is antithetical to the core concept of American government: it literally is up to everyone what happens. Vote, campaign for others, lobby, run for local office, or bigger offices if you find yourself successful.
Look at AOC. People will be vile, they will mock you and attack you, but you can inch the world in the direction you think it should go.
In any given situation, it may not be clear how an individual can start to effect change. But we certainly, absolutely can.
If most people carried the world on their shoulders we might stand a chance but since most don't do that yeah. Just don't bother. (not sure if sarcastic)
Sarcasm aside, don't bother is great advice. There are many ways to approach improving the world, many of them cancel out and most of them do more significant damage in retrospect.
My own belief is to do as little as possible unless a lot of factors are known. Taking travel as an example, doing the least and cheapest is a good bet, it took me considerable research decide to pay more for trains than planes. Where is the additional money going? Even if trains vs planes are environmentally better there's a high risk of financing a military with the energy taxes only the train systems pay. A military can do more environmental damage with 10¢ than you can do with a dollar and then there is what they do with intention.
Governments are trying to game the world to maximum GDP all the time, but what on offer is mostly garbage and enough people turning down all offers forces them to rethink the total economy or (since they are simple folk,) go into recession. Recession is supposed to be terrible, but isn't it actually better than the fast road to a life in an inescapable mall?
That the bad actors of the 1980s are still attacking us and often seem to be back on track for their dream of shitting on the world is bad, but has not been as bad as getting there in 1990 and that is thanks to the path we took with lots of economic upsets.
We are like children who dream of a life of eating only cake and it is our good fortune that keeps us from the world we want long enough to understand a little about what is wrong with it and build some marginally better dreams.
I don't quite understand what your point is but I realise that I'm fully sarcastic. It feels very ovbious that the world would be better if everyone actually shared the responsibility instead of escaping it.
> Governments are trying to game the world to maximum GDP all the time, but what on offer is mostly garbage and enough people turning down all offers forces them to rethink the total economy or (since they are simple folk,) go into recession. Recession is supposed to be terrible, but isn't it actually better than the fast road to a life in an inescapable mall?
I think this is good advice. Who does it benefit to be constantly anxious about the fate of the world and second-guessing one's actions? I'd suggest it doesn't benefit the individual - in fact I'd suggest it's designed to harm and demoralise.
Stop spinning your wheels on this. Count your blessings and be thankful what you currently have, learn to live in the moment, turn off the news and social media (important step), and go on with your life and do the best you can.
Things can be hard enough as it is frankly, putting the weight of the world and it’s future possibilities on your shoulders like you are Atlas typically just leads to insane anxiety, depression, and burnout.
> suggests my generation (and subsequent ones) will be totally screwed in the future?
Invest in tangibles, don't expect any pension funds to exist 50 years later. Your generation is lucky enough to have deflationary cryptocurrencies.
You will not be screwed, and avoid making choices out of FUD. You 're living the most advanced technological age ever. Remember that technology is before politics.
There aren't many alternatives. Unless a cataclysm makes the whole world return to the pre-internet ages, or the whole world turns into some crime-less surveillance utopia, there will always be a use for decentralized cryptocurrencies.
And the benefit of their network effect will contaminate any pocket of freedom that may form.
So, while their relevancy may fade and fluctuate, it seems inevitable that one day, there will be a gap to fill and they'll "permanently" overtake centralized forms of money.
The only positive scenario I can conjure that also sees cryptocurrencies fade in relevance would be a shift to some kind of global "additive only" economy as Mark Nadal blurrily tries to imagine[1]. That seems farther off than 50 years, and even then some parts of the economy would always be better served by traditional cryptocurrency (maybe only the parts machines are left to handle).
I think that cryptocurrencies will become increasingly relevant but the most valuable ones will be completely different from the ones we have today.
Cryptocurrencies are currently technology-oriented but in the future, they will be community-oriented (based more on human principles) and coins will periodically upgrade the underlying technology to improve performance (so long as the wallet address system and account balances are the same).
Different cryptocurrencies will fluctuate in value relative to each other depending on the economic input and output of their communities. The input and output of a crypto-community will vary depending on the appeal of its human/social/political principles; the means of production will bind to cryptocurrencies which follow the principles of those who control them. A cryptocurrency which has an aging community and whose value is supported by legacy systems will slowly lose value.
A person will always have to keep moving their wealth between different cryptocurrencies in order to maintain it. They will have to know and adapt to all the economic trends and changing societal values in order to know which cryptocurrency/communities to invest in.
Staying rich will become difficult; it will require a deep understanding of changing social trends and principles.
^This. I weight my allocations based off market cap so 91% of my investments would go into index funds and no more than 9% overall goes into Cryptocurrency -- 6.5% of which goes into Bitcoin and 2.5% might go into non-Bitcoin cryptos.
I think the whole crypto market is pretty speculative. Either the ultimate Bitcoin replacement will be a nice fork or airdrop off of Bitcoin or the ultimate Bitcoin replacement will be something completely separate and will gradually render Bitcoin worthless.
the whole world turns into some crime-less surveillance utopia
Doesn't sound totally unrealistic to me. Also, maybe the only way to evade extinction through bio/AI tech proliferation. Not sure about the "crimeless" part, the big powers probably don't care too much about most crimes.
they 'll probably be superseded by some form of quantumly-entangled currency, since their crypto algorithms will have become obsolete. But there is a need for a stable form of wealth (like gold), and fiat currencies are increasingly being used as mediums of control , a form of power that is even unelected. I don't think future societies will put up with that.
A lot of people are losing it over this issue. Young or old.
I deal with it through a weird faith the coming issues will be impredictable, and the solutions too. Mostly due to reading about old techniques and science/engineering evolution. So often we don't see new options coming.
In any case, thinking too early is a waste of energy. Unless it's fun and productive (like ecology classes, farming etc).
I think the “tapping and sliding” might actually led to an increase in the engagement of politics from the masses overall. It’s just that it’s not what the the current neoliberal authorities (and the previous generation) want right now.
It helps to gain perspective. How did people in the great depression deal with those feelings? How did people in WWII deal with those feelings? How did people deal with those feelings when it seemed evident the world was about to end from nuclear holocaust? How did they deal with the feeling that the world would be catstrophically cold by the year 2000 (as my dad was taught in college)?
In almost every age of history that we can see, if you had put yourself in that time period, you would have been able to come up with plenty of plausible reasons to ask your question. But what happened? Sometimes, things got worse. Sometimes much worse! But often, things turned out far differently than you would have supposed.
I've observed two things in my relatively brief life: people in every age tend to think their problems are unique, and people in every age tend to be really bad at predicting the future.
> How did people in the great depression deal with those feelings? How did people in WWII deal with those feelings?
In many cases, they died.
There's a real survivorship bias among old people telling young folks to relax and everything will work out somehow because it did in the past.
Obviously, it did for the people telling us this, or else they wouldn't even be here to pat us on the head. The first time things go really really badly for the whole human species might also the be the last time.
> don't worry about that incoming asteroid; back in the 1970s they used to tell us about the overpopulation crisis
That’s a good point. Survivorship bias is hard to overcome. I’d say the best bet any of us has is to work, live below our means, try to improve the world around us, and be as resilient and resourceful as we can be. Worrying is not a useful pastime.
I've been an "apocalyptic" since I was about twelve years old: I believe these are the end times, and that our global civilization is about to experience some kind of drastic upheaval.
That was about thirty years ago. Before the weather went strange. Things have only gotten worse since then.
- - - -
These are the main scenarios to consider:
Apocalypse: civilization crashes and we are in a "Mad Max" world, if we survive at all.
Techno-utopia: science and technology save the day. Star-trek (if human nature is good) or N. Korea (if human nature is bad.)
Gaia: apply e.g. Permaculture to create an eco-uptopia. This is both science-flavored and Spiritual.
Spiritual transformation: e.g. what the "Mayan Apocalypse" of 2013 was supposed to be, or the Christian Rapture.
- - - -
Personally, I hope for the Eco-utopian version of the Gaia transformation -or- the Spiritual transformation (we all go to space-heaven.)
If you're interested in bio-mimetic economics, go watch Toby Hemenway's (RIP) videos: http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/ esp. "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" and "Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture"
If you're interested in the Spiritual transformation pick a religion and practice it. Or meditate. Or use the Core Transformation process (a simple algorithm. https://www.coretransformation.org/ )
If the crash scares you the best thing you can do is move to the remote mountains, "three days further out than a hungry person can walk." Move now while you still can.
Last but not least, if you place your faith in technology then you should... Hmm, i don't know what you do then. Get involved in politics? To make sure the tech is applied in human-values-enhancing ways?
- - - -
Regardless of the external circumstances, the most efficient and effective thing to do is cultivate Self-awareness. It's the only true panacea and it helps both on the personal and societal levels.
It's really awful that people have encouraged this type of anxiety so much; I hear this sort of sentiment on a regular basis from intelligent, well-educated young people who are utterly demoralized.
I'd recommend turning the news off and buckling down to work at making your own life better. Firstly, things are not as bad as they are made out to be. Secondly, there are a lot of people trying to gain by inflating this sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Thirdly, if you take care of yourself and keep your shit in order, you'll be better setup to deal with anything that does come.
I'm genuinely curious, who do you think is "trying to gain" by pointing out the (really quite dire, IMHO) looming crises on several fronts?
From where I sit, activists have been trying to spur movement on major environmental and social problems for decades now, and getting basically nowhere. The people who are getting rich are the ones who have been doing well under the status quo.
Companies selling consumer products - the world is going to hell in a handbasket, you might as well drink a White Claw, buy a Prada bag, and eat a Popeye's chicken sandwich. Damn the future, spend now.
Politicians - if you can pump up a crisis, and present yourself as the solution to that crisis, gold and power flows into your hands.
Ok, I can maybe give you consumer products, but you could equally argue that they benefit as much from happy complacency as from despair.
Have any politicians in the West in the last three decades run successfully on a hard-environmentalism and anti-poverty campaign?
The crisis that's been political gold recently has been human migration, but it doesn't seem to me that the voters animated by that issue are feeling anxious and despondent. (Maybe they are, it's a little hard for me to relate to that mindset) They seem absolutely furious and enjoying their revanchist political power.
Journalists and politicians of course. Journalists because that kind of stuff drives eyeballs which result in ad clicks and subscriptions if they have a paywall and thus money. Politicians because it grabs people's attentions which hopefully then results in them getting voted into office.
Observing the rise of populism (from both the far-left and the far-right) from various parts of the world, I don’t think the current era of neoliberalism won’t last forever. Buckle up, I think the next fifty years are going to be fuckin wild. Enjoy the ride!
I'm with you there. I just try to reduce my news intake...no FB, no twitter, only check news sites once per day. If you limit yourself to what you see and control, it's not as bad.
If it makes you feel any better, our track record for predicting the future has historically been terrible. I highly doubt everything will play out the current evidence suggests.
Global warming, economic inequality, etc aren't the real problem.
The real problem is that the Eurocentric civilization has gone through periodic episodes of general warfare, starting with the Wars of the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, and World War I&II. The last interval from Waterloo to the Guns of August was 100 years. Thus, the next now-global general war is scheduled to begin in the 2040 to 2060 time frame. Note that the geographic scope and the casualty counts have gone up markedly with each episode. The total death toll from 1914 through the 1949 end of the Chinese Revolution was probably over 200 million from war, famine (Ukraine, India), disease (flu, tuberculosis, etc) and genocide (Armenia, Jews, etc.).
Global warming takes too long. Financial and political systems are unstable on shorter time scales.
Current events are paralleling the late 1800s. Interest rates are very low, just as British Consol bonds were earning 2.75% in the late 1800s. The dominant British Empire was shifting from free trade to protectionism within the Commonwealth system as Germany rose, just as the dominant US is shifting from free trade to protectionism as China rises.
Don't worry. Save money so you can move if necessary. Its beyond your control.
>> economic inequality (like property prices),
Save your money. Read Ramsey. Take charge of your own situation.
>> post-truth era, surveillance state
Stay grounded in reality. Not sure about the later..
>> and unsustainable social welfare
It's not as unsustainable as some people think. Social Security is funded, Congress just doesnt want to pay back all the money they borrowed from it.
These issues are all beyond your personal control. Do what you can, but stop thinking the worlds problems are entirely on your shoulders. Take care of your own life first and the rest won't matter so much. Evolution did not stop just because we became aware of it.
Today, It's possible to purchase a VR Headset and be in a different reality and that's on Gen 1 hardware; Gen 2, with varifocal lenses, will change the way we compute and live radically.
For a modest expense, you can purchase a supercomputer capable of fitting almost every book, major production movie, and TV show ever made on its storage and you can download it with your internet connection over months or years. More than enough to last you a life time.
You can fit enough knowledge to educate yourself for the rest of your life on a piece of equipment the size of a bottle cap.
You can, tomorrow, go to an airport, sign up for a passport, and fly almost anywhere on earth.
You can call almost anyone on earth.
And, on that internet connection, you can find out about the myriad of challenges we humans face, including global warming and alternate forms of pollution like deforestation.
I'm in my 30's and I've come to the conclusion that the youth needs to begin investing in government en masse (special interest groups and also investing in their own livelihoods), but more importantly, moving to places that are younger or have a good balance of people. That requires passion and a lot of work, but its doable and if you do it, you can largely ignore all of the things you've stated. Furthermore, as more people realize this, a cultural change will happen, and that is inevitable.
You can already see that with the "OK Boomer" crowd; the problem has been recognized and that is the most important piece of dealing with it.
how should I as a person in late 20s deal with the fear that every piece of evidence suggests my generation (and subsequent ones) will be totally screwed in the future
Consider that late-teenagers and 20-somethings successfully "dealt with the fear" of the Great War, the Great Depression, WW2, the Cold War incl the Cuban Missile Crisis and others, assorted oil crises, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, Chernobyl, more economic crashes in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000's... And every time, the world didn't end, and most of them lived to a ripe old age and life itself generally improved. I get that the things on your list seem terrifying but that's because it's the first time you've seen anything, in a few years you'll look back and realise that there's always some ongoing "end of the world" panic and when it doesn't happen, they'll dream up another one, either to sell you something or trick you into voting for them.
Productivity gains can increase faster than demographics change. Keynes predicted that we could move to a fifteen-hour working week and keep living at 1930s standards. He was right, but collectively we decided to work about the same and consume more instead. In the next fifty years, perhaps our standard of living won't increase as much, but it won't crash purely because of demographic changes.
And focusing more on preventative healthcare doesn't address the problem, either. As the author points out, 50% of healthcare spending is spent on people with less than 30 days to live. If you "prevent liver failure" or whatever, people live a year longer and die of heart failure instead. There isn't a realistic direction for medical research that prevents all diseases requiring care, and leaves everyone 100% healthy until one day they are dead.
I think we can still do a lot, as some diseases of the elderly are chronic and kill them very slowly and expensively, ie neurodegenerative disorders. Others like heart failure or an infection might kill a very old person somewhat more quickly. So, if we prevent the long, drag out, very service intensive illnesses, it may lighten the load.
I think we’re starting to see changes in allowing people the right to die on their own terms. This may be a consequence of the decline of religion.
In any case, this may have a significant effect on the last months of healthcare costs. However I still agree with the premise of the article, but it may slow the inevitable.
How the hell did this get published in Genome Biology? Is it a scam journal or something?
This isn't biology. It's economics - amateur economics. There's a whole field on the public economics of social security systems. The amazing insight this guy is touting has been common knowledge for, oh, twenty years. You don't even need to be an academic. Just read The Economist once in a while.
Life seems to have evolved on Earth to expand greedily, because leaving resources on the table just means another organism will use them.
Life on Earth also seems to have solved this problem with predation, where the greedily growing organism becomes a resource for another, newer organism.
If life on Earth were a pyramid scheme, then blue-green algae would be the rulers of the world because they were the early adopters in the scheme. Except there is no legal system that would consider the blue-green algae first in line for payout. It's a free-for-all.
Instead a very late entrant, humans, are the apex predator and are taking resources from every other organism that came before. It's the opposite of a pyramid scheme.
Our social systems make a noble effort to recognize the contributions of those who came before and support them, and increasingly we are extending this support to the larger biome upon which our civilization is built. However that's a fragile conceit of the current age, and will go away if the civilization itself is threatened.
Who is enforcing the laws which transfer wealth from the young to the old? Elderly police officers?
There is a possible way out, in that wealth is not a fixed resource.
A ponzi scheme treats it as if it is at best that, in that it does nothing to grow it. Economies can grow it, however, as shown by the history of the last six centuries, in which global wealth grew even on a per-capita basis, dispite all the dumb things we did during that time to destroy it.
What we need to do is to give people more wealth-generating and wealth-preserving work to do (which includes educating them to their full potential at sociey's cost.) There's plenty of scope for that just in ameliorating and preparing for the coming climate crisis.
The biggest obstacles to this (and they are very big) are the difficulty of doing this without having projects subverted to enrich a tiny minority, and the unwillingness of those with some wealth to support such projects on the grounds that they will take away what little they have.
Some assumptions going on here: 1. That older people won’t be productive and there won’t be any appetite in the market for this continued production. 2. That current health costs are justified and that won’t diminish with progress. 3. That future lifestyles will require current level of individual consumption.
There are scenarios - albeit on the Trekkie optimistic side - where we will achieve longer, healthy, productive, sustainable and fulfilling lives through technical and social ingenuity.
"We could, of course, handle this cost imbalance by draconian decisions about life and death, but that is probably a political (and maybe ethical) non-starter.."
Well at least giving people the choice to terminate their lives in those circumstances should be permitted and doesn't seem too problematic.
"I believe that it is pointless to increase the human lifespan unless the quality of life for the elderly is also increased."
This is not very worrying because people working on these approaches seem convinced that it's not possible to increase lifespan without increasing quality.
As a result of political processes in the USSR and following its collapse, the life expectancy of Russians decreased significantly. Substantial numbers of elderly Russians, including WW II veterans, died early. I don't think ethics had any influence on the outcome.
"Seventy-seven percent of the Medicare decedents' total healthcare expenditures occur in their last year of life, a staggering 52% in the last 2 months, and 40% in the last month."
That's a lot worse than I thought.
The inverted pyramid age distribution mentioned in his article is already happening in some countries
AFAIK this distribution of expenses is why "Medicare for all" isn't that much more expensive than just "Medicare + Medicaid" (which is to say, public health care spending as it exists already). Consider also how many of the most expensive younger folks, being the ones with major chronic illnesses, are already unable to work and on Medicaid. Everyone else is relatively healthy, on average, and so pretty cheap to cover. I'd bet by far the largest remaining expenses among that mostly-healthy-and-not-already-covered-by-public-programs segment are pregnancy, births, and first month or two of care for sick or premature newborns.
You are right. I did some digging. Cost of premature birth cost 26 billion per year.
Last 6 month end of life care 170 billion.
We are so desensitized to figures in billions because we regularly hear about companies market cap approaching 1 trillion and people with wealth of 100 billion.
they report that 13% is spent during the last year(!) of life.
Also, just like with retirement benefits, the real question, did beneficiary paid for it nor not? Frequently these numbers are tossed around as these were "free handouts" - but we do pay for these all the time - and of course since it is insurance there will be people that get out more of it than others.
That makes either neither unfair nor something that should be fixed. It is working as intended.
In the article you referenced it says" 1627 billion spent on health care in 2011, we estimate that approximately 13%, or $205 billion, was devoted to care of individuals in their last year of life."
It says 13% but the dollar figure still says over 200 billion, and that's 2011 figure.
It's difference between total health expenditure vs. medicare.
Are you saying the research paper got their conclusion and with that title wrong?
In my opinion, for anyone that cares about the scientific accuracy content of the paper titled "The Myth Regarding the High Cost of End-of-Life Care" should be more credible than that "comment"/"blog post"/opinion piece "Life is a Ponzi Scheme".
This is what is so wrong with this original post - it a not a curated, reviewed article. Just a subjective and superficial opinion - but because it was published in an otherwise selective journal it gets more credibility.
My point is percentage is different because they used different demoniators. But dollar amount in numerator is the basically the same. The former author didn't just pull number out of thing air.
It's not just health care, the house market is the _same_ way. Houses are built and sold to people who occupy them and then sell them to younger generations for more and more money. The assumption is that you will always find a person below you to sell to. This strategy has worked for a long time.
Yes exactly, and the fact that the boomer generation has a lot of votes has led to gridlock internationally: they promote regulations that keep the prices artificially skyrocketed or prevent house auctions from happening as is happening in many european countries.
Not to mention they have these huge 4500 sqft McMansions built and are then shocked millenials arent interested I'm them, relative to the modest and older and more affordable houses nearby.
If by more and more money you mean due to inflation, then yes. Otherwise, no, pretty much all returns to real estate are in the form of rent and thus if you are using it yourself, you aren't going to get a lot more back for on average after adjusting for inflation [0, 1].
I often think about the massive changes the US will experience when the Boomers die off. They are more religious, more Republican, likely to be climate deniers and conspiracy theorists...but they also contain an immeasurable amount of knowledge and skill.
In the Irish folk music world, 2/3 of the musicians I play with will be gone within 20 years. We as the younger generations must inherit and pass on their knowledge and skills, lest we lose many things of beauty and tradition. Thankfully, we have YT and audio recorders and books upon books, but we also must keep the face to face, aural tradition alive.
In the 60’s, the boomers were socialist hippies, and now they are conservative Republicans?
The millennials now complaining about inequality, will become conservatives as they age and acquire wealth.
As a gen-X (who’s generation just put their nose down and worked), I hope the millennials grow out of their mentality of victim hood, as they have a larger voting block.
> The millennials now complaining about inequality, will become conservatives as they age and acquire wealth.
Wealth acquisition among millenials is not tracking the rate of boomers in the 60s.
The trend today has been towards increased consolidation of large companies and an associated decrease in economic mobility, decrease in wealth share of those not in the top echelons, the repeal of common-sense regulatory frameworks like Glass–Steagall.
It seems short-sighted to say that all generations are bound to follow the same path as the boomers, when economic conditions today are radically different from those in the 60s.
This is a key reason why technological advances in automation will be seriously needed. Robots with commonsense that can help support the elderly's everyday and healthcare needs, AI & office automation that meaningfully reduces the time spent at work so people can contribute more to their community, better remote collaboration tools to reduce commute time, etc.
We need to make the pie bigger, or at least retain its size, with fewer people working. A silver lining is that most people's strengths tend to be complementary to robot's and software's.
1. Predictable for a bio journal to conclude that biomedical technology is our last hope, but the better solution to me would appear to be a sociopolitical one.
2. The author assumes in his calculus that each human produces approximately the same productive output with his labor; with automation, that is not the case.
3. The pyramid inversion is a transient phenomenon in that, eventually, we can expect the age population graph will even out to become columnar or only slightly inverted. It will not be a problem forever.
> Seventy-seven percent of the Medicare decedents' total healthcare expenditures occur in their last year of life, a staggering 52% in the last 2 months, and 40% in the last month. We are basically spending a fortune as a society for healthcare for very old, very sick people that does not increase the lifespan of the individual by more than 30 days, if at all.
That's almost a tautology, right? Pretty much the inverse of the survivorship bias.
Life-saving procedures are expensive because they are difficult and risky and almost by definition likely to fail, since once medical science is able to "manage" one kind of medical challenge, they immediately have to deal with the next one that would kill the person who was saved. In that sense, it should be obvious that most money is spent just ahead of people finally dying. It's almost that cliche of how you always find your keys in the last place you looked.
This makes me think of those articles where they talk about people retiring from the US to places like Chile where their retirement dollars take them much further. Will be interesting to see if this trend increases and what impact “exporting your elderly” will have on the places importing them.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is not exactly a plausible answer to your question, but it has some relevant wry humour. E.g., the entrepreneur's business plan: "And it is not just for the British, there are many other countries where they don't like old people too!"
That's what I always say: increasing the human lifespan is absolutely pointless (if not completely wrong) without improving health and ability of the ageing people. Invent a way to keep me physiologically and mentally young for longer and I'm totally in it, but don't spend resources on inventing ways to just prolong my miserable existence when I become old. That's why I (not old yet) already invest a lot of time and money in physical and mental fitness and "biohacking" to increase my chances to maintain functional self-sufficiency and resourcefulness until I die.
So I suggest people should mainly invest in research on how to keep people young and functional as they age and let lifespan prolongation emerge just as a bonus.
I just love how the author snuck in this little story about arbitrage:
> (For those of you thinking of funding your research this way, forget it: the cost of collecting and transporting the cans eliminates the profit. However, about $10 million worth of empty bottles and cans do get smuggled into Michigan from neighboring Ohio and Indiana, which do not require a deposit on beverage containers. Returning those out-of-state bottles and cans in Michigan does make a small profit. Michigan lawmakers have proposed requiring that beverage manufacturers put a code on all bottles and cans that are sold in Michigan, and that automated bottle return machines be programmed to read the code so they accept only containers originally sold in Michigan.)
If you assume lifespan keeps increasing but productivity stays flat then sure. If productivity increases at least as fast as the ratio of workers to retirees, then a smaller number of workers can easily cover a larger number of retirees.
It seems like the author is mostly talking about social security, rather than life itself. He also seems to be taking the stance of rerouting funding from other govt health spending such as disease research to social security.
While I don’t disagree with the author’s intentions, I do find his rhetoric and writing style pretty disappointing. Mentioning a general 12,000 year old trend of population growth as a supporting argument, and using a title that vague feels clickbaitey and loses credibility in the message to me.
Interesting read. This hardens the argument we need continue to rapidly develop automation technology. If the productivity of robots were considered, the pyramid would look very different.
No, "rapidly develop[ing]" anything is not a solution. We need to get humans as a species to shift our (subconscious) thinking away from the goal of an ever-increasing number of humans with an ever-increasing "standard of living", enabled by ever-rising "productivity".
We're living in what is essentially a closed system with limited resources and carrying capacity. If we think we can always overcome the limits of one resource by more development of another, we're deluding ourselves and likely on track to make the crash worse when it finally comes.
Exactly what the long-term, sustainable capacity of the Earth may be is of course unknown, but I think there's a strong possibility that we are currently exceeding it.
> We need to get humans as a species to shift our (subconscious) thinking away from the goal of an ever-increasing number of humans with an ever-increasing "standard of living", enabled by ever-rising "productivity".
If you more closely analyze my post, I think you’d see we may agree.
The ever-increasing standard of living seems a fallacy to me. I think part of our system enjoys a lot of things that aren't done by us anymore (crafting tools, making your food, taking time to move and wonder in various sights of nature, teaming up).
Another factor is that the aging population is generally healthier and can work longer than prior generations. I have no desire to stop working at a specific age. Working keep me mentally sharp, while contributing to solving problems as opposed to being a burden on society.
I think most people would prefer to retire and work in project which interest themselves which often have no financial sense or would not be financially viable unless you already have an income which can maintain yourself. Eg: I have zero interest to work for megacorporation for the next crud tool, but I would "work" even 10hours a day for a lot of open source projects I like which would never be capable of paying me, so I look forward to retirement and I wish I could, already today, not work just to keep me and the economy afloat
How many retirees found it hard to abandon their field even though the pressure was too tiring for them ?
Maybe full retirement is too strong, and should be obvious only in physically tough jobs, but for others a semi retirement, as a wise/consultant in their company could be a good compromise.
Turchin, following up on many precious writers who’ve noticed certain cycles or repeating themes in history, has posited that there is an ebb-flow to history that is about 80 years, about the lifespan of a human.
What drives this flow, in this theory, is majority one force. The rise in birth rates during good times, followed by the trouble of environments and economies to absorb the new individuals, eventually leading to some sort of new adjustment among all players.
I took a class on biological and cultural evolution with Peter Turchin as one of the lecturers (for the cultural half). Definitely one of the most insightful courses I took in college.
We enter adulthood and realize that life is without meaning or worth, but remain in emotional debt to those who raised us, our families, our friends, or anyone else who made an emotional investment in us, and who would feel sorrow if we were to kill ourselves. Thus we cannot kill ourselves if we wish to bring no sorrow upon those who invested in us, even if we think life not worth it for ourselves – we must live to repay our emotional debts, and to justify and satisfy others’ investments.
Most then address their emotional debt by starting families and having children in whom to make emotional investments of their own. They make themselves emotionally solvent by creating emotional equity in another human being, who will in time come to realize the meaninglessness of his own life, but who will himself be indebted to his parents. Individuals thus satisfy their emotional debt by drawing down on the emotional debt of their children, who must then address their own emotional debts in turn. And the process repeats itself.
It may be Pareto optimal to escape the continual process of debt repayment and painlessly destroy the human race.
In the book "On Caring", philosopher Milton Mayeroff wrote: "Through caring for certain others, by serving them through caring, a man lives the meaning of his own life. In the sense in which a man can ever be said to be at home in the world, he is at home not through dominating, or explaining, or appreciating, but through caring and being cared for."
Given you acted to write something, what does it show you care about?
In "thinking about thinking", it is very easy to drift from observations to speculations and from insights to overgeneralizations. A variation on that is something Bertrand Russel suggested, that every philosopher at some point makes an (usually unacknowledged) assumption and then proceeds from there.
Your observation (generalized) that a person's feelings about other people's feelings affect our behavior seems true (especially for parents and children). That is perhaps a variation of the theme in "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain" by Antonio Damasio that all reason rests on emotion (with emotion giving us a reason to reason)?
Albert Einstein says something similar in "Religion and Science": https://sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."
Depending on feelings and assumptions about the possibility of moral progress and the nature of the universe, were the human race to vanish, perhaps a long process of growth would just begin all over again for it or something like it eventually? And would such a possibility change the presumed optimum you outline?
Also, on reducing suffering as an optimization criterion, always remember the motivation triad (as explained well by Douglas J. Lisle such as in "The Pleasure Trap") of maximizing pleasure, minimizing pain, and minimizing effort -- where our brains try to optimize all three simultaneously (along with other objectives).
Especially the point here from David Conroy: "Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain. That's all it's about. You are not a bad person, or crazy, or weak, or flawed, because you feel suicidal. It doesn't even mean that you really want to die - it only means that you have more pain than you can cope with right now. If I start piling weights on your shoulders, you will eventually collapse if I add enough weights... no matter how much you want to remain standing. Willpower has nothing to do with it. Of course you would cheer yourself up, if you could. Don't accept it if someone tells you, "That's not enough to be suicidal about." There are many kinds of pain that may lead to suicide. Whether or not the pain is bearable may differ from person to person. What might be bearable to someone else, may not be bearable to you. The point at which the pain becomes unbearable depends on what kinds of coping resources you have. Individuals vary greatly in their capacity to withstand pain. When pain exceeds pain-coping resources, suicidal feelings are the result. Suicide is neither wrong nor right; it is not a defect of character; it is morally neutral. It is simply an imbalance of pain versus coping resources. You can survive suicidal feelings if you do either of two things: (1) find a way to reduce your pain, or (2) find a way to increase your coping resources. Both are possible."
Here is a summary of key ideas from Mayeroff's book in more blunt language: https://thoughtcatalog.com/kyle-eschenroeder/2016/11/this-is...
"In 1971 a philosopher named Milton Mayeroff wrote the manifesto on giving a shit. It’s titled On Caring (for us, On Giving a Shit) and we’ll pull from it to help understand how giving a shit can change our lives and how we might learn to give higher quality shits."
As mentioned there, Mayeroff also wrote: "No one else can give me the meaning of my life; it is something I alone can make. The meaning is not something predetermined which simply unfolds; I help both to create it and to discover it, and this is a continuing process, not a once-and-for-all. "
Or, as Richard P. Feynman said: "Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
For example, your post shows you care about philosophy as well as reducing suffering -- and there are a lot more ideas and actions you can explore starting from those two areas. If you do so, please keep in mind the extra complexity of the motivational triad and other possible human objectives. And along with "The Pleasure Trap", please also perhaps reflect on the book "Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose" by Deirdre Barrett and the essay "The Acceleration of Addictiveness" by Paul Graham as they explore the dark side of modern society and technology relative to human inclinations adapted for a more tribal culture within an environment with different abundances and scarcities. As Stephen Ilardi writes about in "The Depression Cure: The 6-Step Program to Beat Depression without Drugs": "We were never designed for the sedentary, indoor, sleep-deprived, socially-isolated, fast-food-laden, frenetic pace of modern life."
All the best in discovering and/or making meanings in your life -- including from loving caring.
> I just realized that life itself is basically a gigantic Ponzi scheme, and the pyramid is dangerously close to collapsing. In the developed world, we have evolved a society in which a relatively small number of old people have many of their needs cared for through the financial contributions of a larger number of much younger people.
He's not describing a property of life or even human life, but of an economic system shortsightedly based on economic and population growth and externalizing costs.
Human societies have lived without growth in many places and times for hundreds of thousands of years (and collapsed after growth many places and times).
Change the system's underlying goals and you change the outcomes. I'm working to replace the beliefs from growth to enjoying what you have and from externalizing costs to stewardship.
We can change those goals. If we don't, we're only forestalling the inevitable result of any Ponzi scheme.
Add in the other variable that the workforce is increasingly being automated out. Fewer people actually looking for a job (total non working adults). One “hope” is that maybe we get something like the autodoc from that movie “Passenger”?
Young people get raised (for free if I'm not mistaken) from age 0 to age 18 (or more in modern society). That's on top of taxes, savings, etc, their parents pay. And raising a modern kid is far more expensive than in the 1900s or 1950s, not to mention also paying for college (which happens in many ways). Not to mention the eventual wealth inheriting (house, land, etc) which also happens in many cases.
Are they then supposed to coast along with no responsibility to helping support anyone but their own?
With a retirement age at 65, 65+18 = 83 or around the life expectancy (and in many cases lower).
Shouldn't that be in the calculations? Or young people just came from Mars and never had anyone do anything for them?
Yes, animals don't have to help their parent animals. But animals are ready to walk in a few days, and sent off to their own in a couple of months or so...
As a thought experiment: What happens if a society stops having children? Eventually all of the adults become too old to work. They might have money in the bank, but there's nobody to grow food, pick up the trash, etc.
The concern in this conversation is that with declining birth rates and increased life expectancy there either needs to be an increase in worker productivity or a drop in living standards. In 1950 there were 16+ workers contributing to social security per beneficiary, in 2013 there are less than 3 [1].
I'm not sure what to think about measures of our productivity gains in that time. Is worker productivity measured based on GDP? Does that account for the difference between food and entertainment? Maybe young people in the future will not have the money for as many toys. What about crumbling infrastructure? And increased government debt? The young of today live in an world that is economically and demographically quite different than a couple of generations ago.
Your argument that everyone got a free ride for their first 18 years doesn't account for the above concerns.
> And the population pyramid would change dramatically if we had a global thermonuclear war or a planet-wide plague, but we probably won't be so lucky.
It was very interesting to read, thanks for sharing!
Sigh. This guy's a Rhodes Scholar, but gets it all wrong. Social Security and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes (There's a difference between Ponzi and pyramid schemes, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend they're the same.)
Medicare and Social Security are just a tax. Collectively we've decided we'll all take care of our old and infirm. We spend the money we take in every year, and besides the occasional Congress deciding to raid the Social Security trust fund, we just take care of people. As a percentage, are the number of people paying in decreasing, sure, but there's a number of quick solutions: either move the age at which you can collect, or keep the benefits fixed (or even shrink them). Solvency returned.
HN: Don't fall in to the trap. People are trying to convince you that SS and Medicare are insolvent, doomed to fail, etc. They are not. They are some of the most successful, and helpful programs the US has ever created. They are a simple wealth distribution model, where we've decided there's a basic level of livability that humans can't fall beneath. Don't fall into the trap of believing oligarchs and libertarians. The two programs have ushered in the boom since the great depression, and allowed access to healthcare for people who otherwise would just die.
They mainly redistribute wealth from those with low life expectancy to those with high life expectancy.
It's been calculated that for certain groups with particularly low life expectancies (for instance, African American men), social security is actually a net loss for them, as they pay in more to the system than they take out, on average.
That's a specious argument. For example, I might not have children, does that mean I shouldn't pay school tax? No, we all pay the tax, whether I directly benefit from them or not. It's a social contract.
Allowing for special classes is the problem, not a solution. It is the collective good we are striving for. Otherwise, we end up in a situation of the tragedy of the commons, and no one wins.
Perhaps, instead, we should also focus on extending life expectancies for African American men, rather than allowing them to not contribute to Social Security.
The alternative is privatized social security with payments based on the market price of an annuity.
It makes no sense to redistribute wealth from those poor in years to those rich in years. You can require everyone to pay in without also having a backwards redistribution program.
We have that. It's called Social Security. There's nothing to say I will live long enough (under your plan) to collect my just deserves. In other words, I have been taxed under my whole life, and never saw a benefit.
Just replace the word "annuity" in your plan, with "public trust" and you have social security.
We don't have that. We have some populations that are charged significantly more than market value for their annuities and some that are charged significantly less. Social security is a combination of mandatory purchasing of annuities plus redistribution; we should nix the perverse redistribution aspect.
Calling things by different names changes nothing. The generic point is that an ever increasing group of people call upon contributions from a shrinking set of people to get paid(Pensions, SS, Medicare etc). Note this is not an investment. It's not like the older people invested in better schools, colleges and healthcare, that the people passing out will spin new methods of making more money with less people.
Once you arrive here. You can even call it tax or whatever and it changes nothing in terms of basic math. The only reason something like SS/pensions has not collapsed yet is because they use increasing percentage of taxes to pay for it, than spend it on college or infrastructure or something else.
Its not very surprising that people are in awe of Chinese infrastructure or the British healthcare or German education system. You get what you invest in. The US invests in elderly people.
The solutions you have proposed ARE the problem.. the social contract is that you will pay a certain amount over your lifetime and receive a certain amount at a certain age. To change that contract as you have proposed is violence against the young.
I have re-read your comment several times. You are papering over the facts with wishes. Your comment is agist propoganda.
No, the social contract I am an engaging in is, "I will take care of some of the elders, and when I reach an older age, someone will help take care of me." There is no agreement on ages, amount of benefits, or anything else specified, just that it could exist.
I proposed solutions that are one possible answer, there are others: perhaps removing the income cap, or upping the contributions from employers who recently won a 40% reduction in taxes with the tax cuts? Maybe decreasing benefits now is also a possible solution (again, as I proposed).
The point being, Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT (by definition) Ponzi or Pyramid schemes. Ponzi schemes are INVESTMENT vehicles. There is no investment in this case. Pyramid schemes are (again by definition) structures where recruitment and growing the organization are requirements. Social Security doesn't require this, and to argue otherwise is arguing in bad faith.
Something I’ve wondered, is there an amount of money that can’t be spent without changing the meaning of money? If I have $1 I can spend it right away on something tangible, like a can of Coca Cola. If I have $1 Trillion, it would be hard to spend on tangible products. I could probably buy the Coca Cola company and the secret recipe but not a Trillion cans of Coke. The value of money exists on a spectrum. The spending habits of the wealthy and poorest of us reflect this. The wealthy invest and save, but the poorest live paycheck to paycheck. The time spent owning the value of the dollars changes the more of them you have. You may own stocks, but the value can change wildly based on public sentiment, unlike my can of Coke. So where on the spectrum does this printed money go? If it goes to the poorest, it would be spent right away and directly likely leads to inflation of the price of consumer goods. If it goes to wealthiest, it may trickle down in the form of stock prices or investment capital that allows businesses and jobs to be created which at some point may lead to the price of a Coke going up. An 8.5% increase in printed money hasn’t led to 8.5% increase in inflation, so what’s the equation that explains this? I’m also not sure how it makes sense to do this math in percentages.
The reason it doesn't happen of course is that you run into resource crises. Any species that keeps doubling at their natural rate will run out of food, or it becomes food for others.
Coming back to society, it's as if we just aren't prepared for a shrinking population. It's hard to make preditions against a variable that's always gone one way, but is showing sign of turning. How much of the economy is really just size? What's gonna happen when that reverses?
This will probably be a major political theme that lingers in many advanced nations. Fewer young people to work, but also fewer votes than the people who benefit. Immigration as a potential cure, but for how long, and at what cost? I tend to think it's already a kind of underlying dynamic, just not the one that appears in the headlines so often.