• tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      They’ll survive it, their markets and investments aren’t overvalued like ours are. They’ll crash, re-evaluate their societal priorities, and start to build again

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          I mean every society has to rebuild after a crash, I’m just optimistic that they’ll do it faster

            • tetris11@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              Got a summary? I know the onus is on me, but I’m not likely to dig much further

                • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 days ago

                  Yeah, but that’s only a problem if elderly orderlies is an underpaid job that no one wants, and if people can’t afford to live on it when choosing such a profession.

                  If the economy adjusts or society adjusts such that caring for the elderly is a highly sought out and secure job that can easily pay a mortgage, what’s the issue?

                  This is what I mean when I say they will crash and their economy will adjust.

                  • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    13 days ago

                    There aren’t enough tax payers paying into the system to sustain the end of life care, retirement funds/pensions/social security equivalents that an elderly population that large. when you have a 1:1 ratio of people paying in vs paying out your assistance levels will be extremely weak.

                    No nation can sustain that large of an elder population. It’s not economically viable.

    • Cait@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      That’d require significant societal change to an environment where having children is actually manageable

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      No, they’re absolutely not. Their GDP will majorly decline, but their QOL will stay the same or even improve and their GDP per capita also won’t see much change.

      Birtherism is bullshit.

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        I’m interested to know how you believe the elderly will be cared for? Let’s assume for a moment they have no issues financially supporting the elderly, but physically who is supposed to care for them? Who will make up the nurses, doctors and caretakers now that their population pyramid looks like a chicken drumstick?

      • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        Their nation needs tax revenue. That depends on having people to tax. If the population declines too much they cannot afford to maintain social services and QoL will decline.

        None of this is particularly controversial or surprising.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          The services’ costs are dependent on the number of recipients. They’re already in the slump of elderly being a drain on the system, it can only get better not worse.

          The only concern of the population decline that I can see is the decrease in funding available for Military Expenses.

          And, if things get really bad, all they have to do is open up for immigration and able bodied workers will magically appear.