[vkou]

> Systems of social security, healthcare, and the general economy will just collapse under that sort of pressure.

Maybe we could buttress them by all the 4x to 10x productivity gains that automation has brought us. [1] Maybe we could cut back on all the useless, extraneous, low-to-negative ROI shit we're doing. We have options, here, that don't require a population ponzi scheme.

(Also, you can't be blaming this situation in China on demographic collapse, when it allegedly has massive youth unemployment.)

[1] Remember, just a few decades, when somehow, a single working adult could comfortably provide for a whole family? Why can't he, anymore? What has changed? We are more productive per worker, we have more workers participating in the economy, but somehow, you think we can't provide for everyone.

[lotsofpulp]

Expectations of comfort are always changing. Humans are a competitive species.

If the expectation for quality of life for the vast majority is living off of 1 income household, then that is an acceptable quality of life. If that expectation for the vast majority changes to quality of life by living off of 2 income households, then a quality of life from a 1 income household is no longer sufficient.

Also, expectations of work itself change. It could be possible that a sufficiently large portion of the population is simply unwilling to change bedpans for a price close to what old people themselves can afford (even if the cost is implicit from getting services from a family member). In this case, it becomes a political issue of how to allocate labor, i.e. who to tax, how much to tax them, and who gets the benefits of government spending.

[somenameforme]

This [1] page shows changes in real average household incomes from 1965 to 2020, broken down by quintile. Keep in mind the sharp increase in the number of necessities in modern life as well as things like healthcare, education, and housing inflating in price way beyond the rate of nominal inflation. Economically, many people certainly had significantly better lives in the past. Of course that would also have been a life generally without mass computing, the internet, and other such things. And I did say "many people", as it seems the bare median has probably moved up just enough that they're probably better off, but it's really uncomfortably close when one thinks how much we 'ought' have improved.

[1] - https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2021/10/2...

[satvikpendem]

> Remember, just a few decades, when somehow, a single working adult could comfortably provide for a whole family? Why can't he, anymore? What has changed? We are more productive per worker, we have more workers participating in the economy, but somehow, you think we can't provide for everyone.

In Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century, he argues that the period you're talking about is an anomaly historically due to the postwar boom of an unscathed US, that many people take as the historical norm due to recency bias; no one alive today was alive in the 1800s or earlier to see just how unequal life among the poor and rich was. He argues that this inequality is the norm rather than the exception for what is happening today.

[somenameforme]

How does he respond to the 1971 [1] argument? That whole page is alluding to the ending of the Bretton Woods system. Until 1971 the USD was directly convertible to gold at a fixed rate. This was supposed to prevent bad economic behavior because if we weakened the dollar too much (by e.g. 'printing' money), then people/countries could 'bankrupt' the US by converting all their USD to gold. Of course we [shockingly] did print too much money, defaulted on our obligations, and gave the rest of the world a 4 finger salute. A famous quote from Nixon's treasury secretary at the time: "The dollar is our currency, but it is your problem."

I find the consumer price index 1775-2012 quite interesting. It's really easy to see how nearly everything listed there could be directly, and very likely causally, linked to giving the US government the power to start printing tens of trillions of dollars. Because that money invariably makes it to the most well off in society, even on the rare instance when it starts somewhat lower. If not one has to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened at that time, because it's like in 1971 that were just a button pressed saying, "start destroying socioeconomic stability."

[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[gottorf]

One current presidential hopeful has a policy position of undoing that, by having the dollar become a stable unit of measurement against real commodities. It's an interesting idea, and perhaps one more realistic than going back to the gold standard.

[somenameforme]

I don't entirely understand the difference? As the USD has no inherent value, if you stabilize it against a measurement of various commodities you end up with the same thing where 1 'unit' of commodity groups = $x USD. Perhaps it's that the volume of commodities expands more regularly, so eases expansion of the monetary base more than e.g. gold where there is limited supply expansion?

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA