On the flip side, we still have to care for aging populations. Some countries like S Korea, Japan, and Russia simply aren’t going to have the nursing staff or resources to care for a larger and larger population who is too old to work. At some point these countries will have to decide how much of their economy can be dedicated to senior care over commerce and industry. The next 20-30 years are going to see some massively overcrowded nursing home homes and Senior living facilities with overwhelmed staff stretched to the limits trying to keep them dignified end of life
Every capitalist economy deliberately keeps a substantial pool of unemployed workers in order to suppress wages and bargaining power. There isn’t a lack of people to do care work, there is a lack of investment in people - and the devaluation of people and nature is a requirement of capitalism, there is no profit without it occurring somewhere in the equation. All of the concerns you’ve outlined can be nullified and then some by cutting out the tumors - billionaires, landlords, private banks, rent-seekers of all kinds - freeing up even more labor toward socially useful ends.
And billionaires understand this, which is why they promulgate the idea that maybe we just can’t care for our elders and disabled anymore.
The median age in Japan keeps rising. In 20 years the average age will be above 65. Someone has to care for the people aged 80 and above, and if your country has 40,000,000 retirees compared to 30,000,000 people of workong age, that’s a an impossible circle to square. Japan and South Korea are simply not going to be able to properly care for their aging populations. Having 2 people turn 65 compared to every one that turns 18 is a massive problem that can only be solved through immigration.
Capitalism has definitely made the problem worse, but the developed world is about to hit a demographic cliff that is going to tank the quality of life for billions over the next few decades.
This issue seems to be affecting most developed countries. One option to resolve it is mass migration, the other is heavy development and widespread adoption of robotics and automation tech. It’s possible that the tech route could lead to adoption in other industries and get rid of menial labour leading to UBI. But that’s just my highly wishful thinking. The likely result will be mass migration from poorer countries that’ll lead to millions being exploited and even if the tech solution was implemented at least to begin with and probably overall it’d lead to an uber-capitalist authoritarian hell-scape.
You can’t automate your way to healthcare. People need socializing, nurses to care for their needs, doctors to make adjustments, housekeepers to check in and assist in daily tasks that people just can’t do. And even if Futurama style robots were invented in the mext 5 years, there is no way in hell anyone would be comfortable with them being the principal caretakers of the elderly. That’s on top of all the other healthcare needs of the working population. Immigration will only get come countries so far, and will lead to further brain drain of poorer areas.
Very good points, all well illustrated. Up Voted.
On the flip side, here in the US, the older generation is reaponsible for the fuck ups of the oast that got us here, and they are responsible for the ongoing issues the younger generations are experiancing trying to get decent paying jobs.
Depends entirely on how low they go, and for how long.
humanity can survive with just two people. capitalism cant.
FYI, humanity cannot survive with just two people, either:
https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population
☝️🤓
Not really, no. Assuming those two people were opposite gender and able to procreate, they’d still only manage a few generations max before inbreeding made the species nonviable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
