🍹Early to RISA 🧉@sh.itjust.worksM to Greentext@sh.itjust.works · 17 days agoAnon isn't worried about population declinesh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square103linkfedilinkarrow-up125arrow-down11
arrow-up124arrow-down1imageAnon isn't worried about population declinesh.itjust.works🍹Early to RISA 🧉@sh.itjust.worksM to Greentext@sh.itjust.works · 17 days agomessage-square103linkfedilink
minus-squareSerinus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·17 days agoWe just never get to retire. By 2030 it’s projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.
minus-squarelimdaepl@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·16 days agoWhat those „retiree per worker“ graphs always fail to mention is how productivity increased over the same period. Those two workers today produce about as much as 8 did in the 50s so supporting the retirees should in fact be easier today, not harder. That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately.
minus-squareboonhet@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·16 days ago That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately Yes, because your wages go to said retirees. Who do you think owns all the companies not increasing your wages?
minus-squareSerinus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·17 days agoSeems like it’d be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go. Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.
We just never get to retire.
By 2030 it’s projected to be 2.0 workers per retiree.
What those „retiree per worker“ graphs always fail to mention is how productivity increased over the same period.
Those two workers today produce about as much as 8 did in the 50s so supporting the retirees should in fact be easier today, not harder.
That it isn’t is because wages didn’t increase proportionately.
Yes, because your wages go to said retirees. Who do you think owns all the companies not increasing your wages?
Seems like it’d be a good place for the last 50 years of gains in efficiency to go.
Time to start taxing the rich instead of worrying about taxing per worker.