- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
I couldn’t find an uncensored version
You must log in or # to comment.
it’s already known what it’ll look like:
a line of folks who are elderly and forced to work for minimum wages in jobs an elderly person can handle. capitalism has designed it this way.
30 years? It’s happening now. A significant portion of the homeless people that exist in this country are senior citizens who are too old to work and cannot afford housing. There are programs that are able to help some of them, but not all.
We need more affordable housing and nursing staff who can take care of elderly homeless people.
Too bad the rich oligarchs are buying up land for data centers to make AI slop the next big thing, and healthcare is laughably underfunded in this country.
Unfortunately more nursing staff won’t matter if there’s no one to pay for people to be there. Everyone can get Medicare after they turn 65, but what few people know is that Medicare only pays for Skilled Nursing (SNF), which is short-term and requires a “skilled need,” aka a doc has to certify that you need physical and occupational therapy for a period of time to get better.
As people age though, many lose the ability to care for themselves altogether, and many of those individuals may end up in Long-Term Care (LTC). Medicare does not cover this, only Medicaid does, and only people who are basically destitute are eligible for Medicaid. This means someone who is forced to go to LTC is very likely to spend every penny to their name there before becoming Medicaid eligible.
Make a long-term care plan, y’all, and talk to your parents about theirs too. I’ve seen what happens when it becomes a crisis and no plans have been made and it’s awful.
But arent you happy that they aren’t just outright murdering you like in Tulsa? Really, you should be happy to starve or succumb to weather or sepsis, pleb.
Feeling very comfy with my NHS when i read this comment
Have you also seen the news that the NHS is giving all their health data to Palantir?
Europe’s pensions are all crumbling. Who’s gonna pay those pensions and social security when 60% of the population is 60+? It’s a really issue that politicians ignore because they prefer to listen to boomers instead of young parent-age voters.
Great Britain pays a much LOWER portion of its tax receipts into public healthcare than does the USA. The fact that it achieves far greater results, and for the entire population from cradle to grave is just the result of using it properly.
that’s just a really bad take. you’re acting as if we need kids to pay for our retirement. first of all, money is fictional and the state could print more or tax the rich to pay for our retirement if it actually wanted to.
not even in my dreams would i come up with a ridiculous notion such as “we won’t be able to pay for retirement anymore”. that’s just bullshit they tell you to keep you dumb and shitting out little soldiers to feed to the meatgrinder.
productivity has gone up since 1970 like nothing else yet “we can’t afford it”. wake up man.
Now overlay this with the k-shaped growth in household income/spending, and the math starts mathing.
it shouldn’t be called K-shaped because we’re very much not “OK”.
it should be called r-shaped where the “r” stands for republican but also for ruin.
You’re not thinking about this in a way that will lead you to useful conclusions.
First is the care aspect. Do you think it takes half the number of care workers to look after 100 people with dementia then it used to in 1973? I don’t think so. So if you have an ageing population, you need to allocate a higher and higher share of your population to caring for them if you want to maintain their standards of care. That means the rest of your population has a lower standard of living. So, either way, some portion of the population has a lower standard of living.
Second is the total output problem. Elderly people still need to eat. They use electricity and all other resources while, if retired, producing none of them. What this amounts to is that, as the population ages, productivity per person decreases, while consumption per person increases. This, again, means living standards drop somewhere.
Thinking about money is misleading. Money merely allocates units of production, but the problem is a restriction on units of production (in the form of working people).
people seem to be constantly forgetting the very real threat of a mass unemployment crisis induced through automation. WW2 was essentially caused because of people’s dissatisfaction, there were fewer jobs than people, and people couldn’t find work, and that caused havoc. now i see people here dumbly arguing “nuh uh, we need more workers to sustain the system” to which i say, have you ever considered that the number of jobs over time is, in fact, not constant?
You haven’t responded to anything I said about the balance of production, or what I said about decreasing living standards. At the risk of throwing more words into the void:
High unemployment is very bad. But that doesn’t mean an economy is fine as long as everyone is employed: if there are important jobs that can’t be done, that is also bad. And because workers are not all the same, that means it’s possible to have high unemployment in one sector (e.g. all software developers get laid off because of AI) at the same time as having not enough people in another (e.g. we don’t have enough nurses in our hospitals).
You can hope that this will balance out and that you can retrain your software developers to go and be nurses. What you do at your peril is assume:
- that the numbers actually work and you don’t still end up with a deficit one way or the other
- that this can be done in time to avoid a catastrophe
- that this doesn’t cause suffering to the software developers who actually don’t want to be nurses and are wholly unsuited to it
The last point means that you in fact cannot just shift your workers around like this, and instead need a long period of shuffling around where some software developers are unemployed and killing themselves due to depression, others are training to be nurses, others are training to do something completely different, accepting lower pay because they’re going into a sector without high vacancies, causing some people in that sector to seek better opportunities elsewhere, and so on, until - hopefully - the sectors are balanced.
have you ever considered that the number of jobs over time is, in fact, not constant?
If you can do the same work with fewer people, that may lead, over many decades, to fewer hours worked per person, effectively increasing the dependency ratio (interpreted not, as it normally is, as “workers to non-workers” but “hours worked to hours not worked”). It did after the industrial revolution - it took a long time, and many lives ruined by poverty.
Issues with pensions are already happening.
I’m not saying we need kids, but the way things are right now, governments don’t seem willing to change trajectory, and we need to change. Because as it stands, kids are paying pensions and without them the system collapses.
Idk man, but i’m gonna have kids and stay healthy as long as possible so i’m not that worried for myself.
I couldn’t find an uncensored version
Well that’s because people keep posting the censored version.
Also the censoring is nearly useless so I don’t even understand why they bother in the first place
Aren‘t we already dealing with that? Despite boomers‘ hoarding of wealth, plenty of them didn‘t have jobs offering retirements or save enough on their own to have a retirement, that‘s why there‘s messed up push on the theofasicsts part to want people to have more kids so we can fund the social security and medicare retirements of all these people.
Retirement is a concept that only really existed post World War II. They’re haven’t been many generations over the last 10,000 years that I’ve been able to just magically stop working and live off their saved money.
I don’t think this is true. There’s a ton of evidence of societies where elders were taken care of by the rest of their group, maybe still participating in some labor, but in significantly less demanding labor
The Incas had social security for the ill, disabled and elderly.
Probably like the movie called plan 75 in which the government encourages medically assisted suicides.
So yeah, not great
I remember a Star Trek TNG episode where it was 60 on some planet.
I remember a Rick and Morty episode where it was spaghetti
Yeah, Troi’s mom was all over him.
If you really think that the world leadership today has any plan for anything further into the future than 5 years, think again
I feel a lot like a truck is approaching a cliff with no intention of slowing down at all. The truck is our society
Oh, they have plans alright!
Just not for you and me.
Or they do, but it’s more of a “Final Solution” sort of plan.
Please, I’d kill for an actual 5 year plan like they have in socialist countries. Leadership cares until the start of the next election cycle, which is arbitrarily defined by the corporate media.
I don’t know that I only blame leaders for that though. Voters can be idiots. If something that takes more than 2 or 4 years to make, they will vote against. Like they think everything could be done in a month or a year.
yeah, so what’s the solution?
Every single one of these old rehashed memes with blurred out swearwords I will permanently downvote.
I thought all downvotes were permanent. Do they expire after a period of time if you don’t mark them as permanent?
Poetic licence, you can’t hurt me.
Explain this to me like I am stupid. I don’t get the censoring hate
Imagine you’re in a bar with your friends. Someone tells a joke, but covers their mouth when they say a naughty word. How would that play out in your friend circle?
But I can clearly see the censored word. It is not even mildly inconvenient. I am genuinely confused
Incompetent censorship is not somehow better than normal censorship.
Most social security systems are pay-as-you-go, meaning the current generation of workers is subsidizing current pensions. With the glut of retired boomers, this is happening now.
Why your children are supposed to house and care for you of course.
What children?
The ones you’d have if 15yr olds were still pumping out kids
Fucking excuse me?!?
Ha…yeah… PROBABLY should have linked the below to explain the comment. Downvotes well deserved!
Not entirely sure but they might be referring to an interesting wrinkle in falling birth rates. A huge portion of that is there are way fewer teenage moms nowadays.
i think they were calling you a 15 year old
edit: not that i agree, i was just clarifying what they meant
Nice recovery on the edit 👍
As I linked in my reply, it was a reference to the Fox News senior medical commentator saying dropping birthrates are caused by lower teen (edit)pregnancy rates. Also OP is 15.
DC pensions are dogshit, and that’s for people that are lucky enough to have even those. We are fuuuucked as a society.
Assuming they get rid of Social Security, I suspect they will just find excuse to winnow the rolls. It has strong support. Medicare as well.
Medicaid is villainized obviously, lazy poors not making enough money, they make me so angry!
like a FUPA on the Statue of Liberty
The same thing that happens to people who are retiring now and didnt plan/couldn’t afford to save
