|
|
|
|
|
|
by twoflower9
2383 days ago
|
|
|
You're only addressing a few variables in a complex equation here. One of the big problems is the economic model that demands constant growth. A part of the problem with this model is that it requires constant population growth, especially to support the retirement of the baby boomers. This population growth comes at a cost to the proletariat. More competition for jobs means downward pressure on wage growth. More consumers means upwards pressure on cost of living. This creates a general movement of wealth in an upward direction. Sure the whole economy would collapse if we tried to move off this model, but perhaps this is what needs to happen. It's an unhealthy unsustainable model anyway. Another issue is that employees jump around companies these days making companies less likely to invest in employees. People used to be lifetime employees and thus companies were more willing to invest in them with training and education. |
|
|
This is only true if the population growth accelerates (as in: the per-year percentage goes up every year. So 3% this year, 4% the next, 5% the next, and so on). If population growth is stable at a given percentage, then so too will be the proportion of the old to the young.
To give an exaggerated illustration, consider a population that doubles every day. Every day, half of the population is one day old, a quarter is two days old, an eighth is three days old, and so on. While I admit I may misunderstand the statistics, a quick look at the median age suggests that exactly the opposite is happening: The median age has been steadily rising since the 60s.
While constant growth is indeed unsustainable, an overpopulation of youth does not appear to be a part of that unsustainability.
(edit: formatting)