[nverno]

> society would be very well served

A society that encourages people to off themselves because they are a burden doesn't sound nice to me. I think anyone should have the choice (legally) to end their life, but it would be gross if people actually started talking about how that would be good for everyone else.

[lotsofpulp]

Nice or not, the numbers are the numbers. A society that dedicates too many of its resources to servicing old people who cannot provide anything back to society will not fare well on the global scene.

How much productivity can one expect to transfer from young people to old people if the total fertility rate is too low? Surely the cracks start to appear when there are 2 old people for every 1 young person? Absent sufficient automation, of course.

[Gud]

Canada is a rich and prosperous nation. How do you figure “too many of its resources” is being spent on elderly care??

[lotsofpulp]

That is up to Canadians to decide. A common effect is decreasing purchasing power of currency, which typically causes political turmoil because young workers want to be able to buy things they want if they are going to be incentivized to work.

Typically, this causes asset price inflation, where the government tries to keep the most active voters (old people) happy, and to do that, they try to keep old people’s purchasing power from diminishing too much. And since older people have more assets than younger people, it effectively results in a transfer of the fruits of the country’s productivity from young to old.

I don’t know how accurate a picture the media and the rhetoric on the internet paints, but this seems to be a growing issue in Canada, at least from changes in their real estate prices relative to income.

At the end of the day, people who don’t work need people who work. But people who work don’t need people who don’t work. Presumably, if people who work never received anything in exchange, then they would not be incentivized to works.

And so the implied contract is people work now and give to people who don’t work, and in exchange, in the future, they will be the people who don’t work and receive from people who work.

But if there will be fewer people who work in the future, and not sufficient automation, and people who work now see perhaps their parents getting less than they expect, and they see TFR trends, and put two and two together and realize they are not going to get what they put in, then they may choose to opt out of this contract.

[Gud]

I agree with your main points.

[bluefirebrand]

I don't think Canada behaves like a rich and prosperous nation, honestly

The way Canada operates me reminds me of people I know who have poverty mindset. Spending money on longterm investments seems unthinkable here

I think it's a side effect of politicians only really caring about the next election cycle. Any investment that won't pay off before the next election is sidelined

[rini17]

But that mindset is pervasive. If we don't have the resources for old people, then what about chronically ill? Everything gets optimalized away, then we end up with inadequate care for children...and if society is not even capable to provide that, why have it at all?

[jncfhnb]

That’s just stupid. Even at its most evil, a policy optimized for cold economic efficiency with no ethics would have more resources for children because children are a valuable investment.