you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 hours ago (10 children)

This is not about communism vs capitalism, its about the ratios. If there are 5 old people for every young person then how are we supposed to take care of all the old people? There’s just not enough manpower.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • Why do you care about the ratio of workers to old people? What matters is the ratio of dependents to workers. We have more retirees, but we also have fewer children. This isn't that hard. If we could manage the Baby Boom of the 50s, we can manage this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 hours ago*

    No, it's about the scale of society and how we support ourselves in retirement, though. See, if retirement funds rely on, as the guy above me says 1. Companies underpaying their employees and 2. Governments taxing a group of more people in the below generations than there are to support in the top - then those are unsustainable sources of retirement comfort.

    So what would be sustainable? Well historically, and in some countries today, old people need family to support them into old age. You would need either your own kid, with their own house big enough for you, or a rich little nephew with a house big enough for all you and your siblings to live in while retired.

    Or... We just do the decent thing and take care of non-relatives. To ease the load on, say, retirement homes, we'd need to agree across society to bring the old people into communities of younger adults, and those younger adults would need to check on them regularly.

    Sice this requires a community binding together, you might call it "communism." Though it isn't necessarily Marxism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    Also the ratio is a lot higher in nursing homes. Yes you might have a ratio of x nurses to y old people, but you also need to consider the people indirectly contributing. Like the trades people who built the building, or the people who pay for the care through taxes or otherwise, the people working to route electricity, the pharmacists making all those medications that the old people need, etc.

    Also, we need people to do jobs other than working in nursing homes. We can't have all our workforce caring for the elderly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago* (1 child)

    Population decline is a global phenomenon. You can't offset this loss with immigration when the countries people are coming from are also experiencing a population decline. We (in the West) are currently using immigration to offset this loss now, but when the population decline really starts hitting other parts of the globe (as it is projected to do within the next few decades) then that will no longer be a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Actually it is a communism vs capitalism thing. The problem arises in both, but the solutions available depend on the system. I reccomend you look up how China is handling its massive elderly population. For example the elderly there have huge public parks and get outside moving and socializing a lot. In big cities it's common for them to have mid day slow dance meetings in the parks. This is only possible because the government's priority is not producing profit for billionaires but caring for its people. So it maintains these things and the public transport required to get the elderly there, and the assistance to keep them fed and healthy.

    This video is 15 years old: https://youtu.be/SvmV7GRRPq0

    When people stay active and a part of their community into their old age instead of sitting in their huge houses alone or in a nursing home they require much less support to keep living.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment