[RobertoG]

"It wouldn't actually matter. The problem is demographic, not financial."

It's interesting how many people don't understand (or don't want to understand) this.

Money is just a number, is real resource what is important.

Never mind how many savings the people have, if there are not enough people or resources to do the necessary jobs.

And, the other way works too, never mind how many old people there are without savings, if the productivity is enough to take care of them easily.

The obvious conclusion is that, instead of caring about money "saved", we should be caring about getting more productive. That would mean improve technology, increase knowledge and training.

[hedonistbot]

My problem with "getting more productive" is that the gains nowadays are achieved through automation (capital investment in general) which pretty much guarantees that the gains from the increased productivity are captured by the capital owners. So even if we double the productivity of the economy, there is no guarantee that this will improve the lives of most people who depend on salary or pension. There must be some form of redistribution to allow sharing the gains of productivity but this has been a taboo in the US (and many more places) since the 80s and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

[RobertoG]

Even if it were a problem or resources, the solution is invest now in creating more resources, not in "saving money".

I think that part of the reason it's a taboo, is because the officially pushed narrative is designed to hide that, in many instances, is a problem of redistribution more than a problem of resources.

For instance, in USA, the "public debt crisis problem", that it's mainly meaningless, distract from a honest debate of the real issues.

[sddfd]

We are past the point were the problem is resources scarcity, be it products or workforce.

We are discussing about resource allocation. Money is the accepted way of influencing resource allocation.

Telling people they should not save money is effectively telling them to give up their influence on resource allocation.

The consequences of not being able influence resource allocation can be dire: If you have no leverage, you may die of sickness or outright starvation.

[RobertoG]

We are discussing about resource allocation but frequently this is hidden with talk about money.

If we want to solve our problems, better we start to talk of them trying to clarify the problem, instead of obscure it.

This is obvious in countries with government backed pensions schemes, where the narrative is that we will have not "enough money".