Explain to me like I am 5...How will we keep growing with an aging population?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More immigration and a higher birth rate are the only answers. Right now those trends are both negative.

We are not going to have higher birth rate. It is impossible. South Korea and Japan have proposed so many solutions and they are still below replacement rate.

Th cost of living is out of control.....

[Anonymous]

I question the merits of the premise. Why do we want to "keep growing", consuming ever more resources?

If the premise is based on an assumption that replacement populations are needed to pay for the care of the elderly, that's not a valid premise. People today can work, earn, and save for their own retirements, without relying exclusively on future government benefits which depend on younger people funding them.

Personally, I think a less crowded world, consuming less, would be a good thing. Just look at the effects of overpopulation in undeveloped countries, where too many people compete for too few resources.

[Anonymous]

The robots are going to make stuff for us for free and do stuff for us for free.

[Anonymous]

The Earth can't support very many more people, especially living as we do in the US. So either the population decreases or the changes in weather cause the population to decrease.

[Anonymous]

They will start putting elderly in robot bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well immigration *was* the answer

Grrr this answer always upsets me. And not because I am anti immigrants. Why are we relying on immigrants instead of letting our population have children? Dh and I are now UMC, but we waited until our mid 30s to have kids because we couldn’t afford it from 25-35. We didn’t have maternity leave and also couldn’t afford to be a sahm. I have so many other friends who would like to have had a second or third child and couldn’t afford it.

I agree with you and the answer is that making it easier for you to have children would create taxes on businesses and they don’t want that. Immigrants on the other hand will just create more demand and be cheaper labor instantly.

Another argument I have seen is that birth rates are falling in countries with appropriate safety nets too.

Immigrants create an immediate strain on schools and Medicaid. They are not cheaper when you factor everything in. The issues is that our schools are funded by local property taxes and not the federal government so they have different sources of funding.

Well the Cato Institute, not exactly a bastion of liberal thinking, thoroughly disagrees with that conclusion.

https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states

Most Americans are morons as realize that you can only get the biggest / best government benefits when you are a citizen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We might look like Japan in some regions though perhaps not the entire country. Ghost towns in rural areas, even of larger cities, that kind of thing. In Japan they are trying to get people to buy houses in sparsely populated areas. We could see the same.

Japan would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, ie not allow in immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question the merits of the premise. Why do we want to "keep growing", consuming ever more resources?

If the premise is based on an assumption that replacement populations are needed to pay for the care of the elderly, that's not a valid premise. People today can work, earn, and save for their own retirements, without relying exclusively on future government benefits which depend on younger people funding them.

Personally, I think a less crowded world, consuming less, would be a good thing. Just look at the effects of overpopulation in undeveloped countries, where too many people compete for too few resources.

Most people don't earn enough to save for retirement without social security. The vast majority of people rely on social security. Wages are too low, and col too high to be able to save a ton for retirement for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The robots are going to make stuff for us for free and do stuff for us for free.

And the robots will be free also! Along with the natural resources to make them! Everything free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My personal conspiracy theory that I believe in was that the government purposefully dropped the ball on Covid in order to dispose of a lot of elderly, sickly people quickly. I think the government will do the same for the next “big one.”

Given that Trump was in charge and he's capable of anything, this is not impossible. But it's more likely that he was simply incompetent and ran the response horribly because he doesn't understand even the basic tenets of governance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is that people are going to work longer if they are healthy enough.

A lot of the retirees/forced-out older managers and execs from my F500 company seem to not fully retire. Even re-emerge with new full-time corporate jobs after a few years off.

My grandpa retired from a corporation at 65 and lived to be 94. He easily could have worked until 80-85.

If economics change in ways that make it useful or necessary for retiree age people to work, it will happen.

In order for this to be a viable solution, you need older people to be healthier than they are. It's one thing for a wealthy white guy to work until he's 80 after decades of excellent healthcare in corporate jobs, and not doing hard labor. This is not the case for the vast majority of elderly people, who have disabilities that prevent them from doing a lot of even low-impact jobs. And it does nothing to solve the problem of a shortage in workers for physically demanding jobs in essential industries like agriculture, construction, infrastructure and maintenance, and healthcare. Heck, a significant number of the jobs in healthcare we need to fill are needed to care for the disabled elderly population. Sorry but there are no 80 yr olds who are going to take jobs as health aides whose whole job is help 80 yr olds.

I think if you've only ever known UMC and UC people working cushy white collar jobs, you may not understand how this really works. But who cleaned your granpa's house? Who mowed his lawn? Who *build* his house? Who built the roads he drove on? Who taught his kids to read? Who took his blood pressure at the doctor's office?

Think. We aren't facing a shortage of corporate executives here.

PP. You are being unnecessarily insulting. There are quite a lot of middle-class white collar workers. And pensions are going away so people don't get the automatic income they used to.

Regarding your rhetorical questions. My grandpa didn't move between the ages of about 50 and 94. He mowed his own lawn using a lawn tractor. And did a lot of home maintenance himself.

I have another relative, not so fancy but a bit of a layabout, who went to work as a care provider at an old folks home in his late 60s/early 70s because he still needed to earn some social security credits at that advanced age. He was able to perform that work.

I've run across a lot of older physicians lately. Meaning boomer-ish who look like they could retire if they want to (60s plus).

My elderly parents just had their chimney rebuilt and the main mason looked extremely old. But he was spry and did a good job. He had a younger man with him. Older people can retain a lot of muscle and dexterity if they are active their whole lives.

My kids have a sub at their school that is extremely old from their perspective. Possibly in her 80s. A famously-beloved elementary teacher just retired after 50! years of service. So she was at least 72.

My point is that people will come back into jobs if they need or want the money. No, they can't do every job.

Heck, I myself am wondering if when I'm old if I could be a nanny to a professional family. It seems like being a grandma babysitter could be worth at least $40K a year or more to a highly-compensated professional couple. "Household managers" even more.

It's not just UMC people's jobs that could continue to be done.

The concept of retirement was invented. It's not entirely natural.

No one wants your old butt as a nanny or house manager
Who the hell will be able to afford either once republicans are done killing jobs and the economy??

I disagree. It's quite hard in my area to find a reliable, highly-educated, legally-here young woman with full-day availability whom you would trust to drive your kids around town. And currently older people don't need to bother because they have pensions and Social Security. Or veterans' benefits. My grandma's senior living community was full of Silent Generation and Boomer people who were supporting themselves mainly with those kind of payments. But Gen-X doesn't often have that setup.

No matter what, there are always rich people. Rich Republicans will ensure that rich Republicans remain. No matter how hard you culminate. There are still rich people in Europe and Japan.

Distribution of wealth explains a lot if you actually look at it. Wealth in the US has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands in the US since the policies of Reagan started this trend in the 80s. Ignore the importance of wealth at your peril. Some will always be wealthier and some will always be poorer. But in the past, the CEO might have made 15 times what the lowest paid worker made and now it's more like 300 times more:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/21/ceo-worker-salaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question the merits of the premise. Why do we want to "keep growing", consuming ever more resources?

If the premise is based on an assumption that replacement populations are needed to pay for the care of the elderly, that's not a valid premise. People today can work, earn, and save for their own retirements, without relying exclusively on future government benefits which depend on younger people funding them.

Personally, I think a less crowded world, consuming less, would be a good thing. Just look at the effects of overpopulation in undeveloped countries, where too many people compete for too few resources.

Continuous growth is the basis of capitalism, the stock market and our society's prosperity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We might look like Japan in some regions though perhaps not the entire country. Ghost towns in rural areas, even of larger cities, that kind of thing. In Japan they are trying to get people to buy houses in sparsely populated areas. We could see the same.

Japan would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, ie not allow in immigrants.

And yet, even they let Filipino Nurses enter the country, they just can't become citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is that people are going to work longer if they are healthy enough.

A lot of the retirees/forced-out older managers and execs from my F500 company seem to not fully retire. Even re-emerge with new full-time corporate jobs after a few years off.

My grandpa retired from a corporation at 65 and lived to be 94. He easily could have worked until 80-85.

If economics change in ways that make it useful or necessary for retiree age people to work, it will happen.

In order for this to be a viable solution, you need older people to be healthier than they are. It's one thing for a wealthy white guy to work until he's 80 after decades of excellent healthcare in corporate jobs, and not doing hard labor. This is not the case for the vast majority of elderly people, who have disabilities that prevent them from doing a lot of even low-impact jobs. And it does nothing to solve the problem of a shortage in workers for physically demanding jobs in essential industries like agriculture, construction, infrastructure and maintenance, and healthcare. Heck, a significant number of the jobs in healthcare we need to fill are needed to care for the disabled elderly population. Sorry but there are no 80 yr olds who are going to take jobs as health aides whose whole job is help 80 yr olds.

I think if you've only ever known UMC and UC people working cushy white collar jobs, you may not understand how this really works. But who cleaned your granpa's house? Who mowed his lawn? Who *build* his house? Who built the roads he drove on? Who taught his kids to read? Who took his blood pressure at the doctor's office?

Think. We aren't facing a shortage of corporate executives here.

PP. You are being unnecessarily insulting. There are quite a lot of middle-class white collar workers. And pensions are going away so people don't get the automatic income they used to.

Regarding your rhetorical questions. My grandpa didn't move between the ages of about 50 and 94. He mowed his own lawn using a lawn tractor. And did a lot of home maintenance himself.

I have another relative, not so fancy but a bit of a layabout, who went to work as a care provider at an old folks home in his late 60s/early 70s because he still needed to earn some social security credits at that advanced age. He was able to perform that work.

I've run across a lot of older physicians lately. Meaning boomer-ish who look like they could retire if they want to (60s plus).

My elderly parents just had their chimney rebuilt and the main mason looked extremely old. But he was spry and did a good job. He had a younger man with him. Older people can retain a lot of muscle and dexterity if they are active their whole lives.

My kids have a sub at their school that is extremely old from their perspective. Possibly in her 80s. A famously-beloved elementary teacher just retired after 50! years of service. So she was at least 72.

My point is that people will come back into jobs if they need or want the money. No, they can't do every job.

Heck, I myself am wondering if when I'm old if I could be a nanny to a professional family. It seems like being a grandma babysitter could be worth at least $40K a year or more to a highly-compensated professional couple. "Household managers" even more.

It's not just UMC people's jobs that could continue to be done.

The concept of retirement was invented. It's not entirely natural.

No one wants your old butt as a nanny or house manager
Who the hell will be able to afford either once republicans are done killing jobs and the economy??

First --- 60% plus in the country are doing great so they could afford this. PP has a good idea if PP has the right personality. There would be high demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My personal thought is that people are going to work longer if they are healthy enough.

A lot of the retirees/forced-out older managers and execs from my F500 company seem to not fully retire. Even re-emerge with new full-time corporate jobs after a few years off.

My grandpa retired from a corporation at 65 and lived to be 94. He easily could have worked until 80-85.

If economics change in ways that make it useful or necessary for retiree age people to work, it will happen.

In order for this to be a viable solution, you need older people to be healthier than they are. It's one thing for a wealthy white guy to work until he's 80 after decades of excellent healthcare in corporate jobs, and not doing hard labor. This is not the case for the vast majority of elderly people, who have disabilities that prevent them from doing a lot of even low-impact jobs. And it does nothing to solve the problem of a shortage in workers for physically demanding jobs in essential industries like agriculture, construction, infrastructure and maintenance, and healthcare. Heck, a significant number of the jobs in healthcare we need to fill are needed to care for the disabled elderly population. Sorry but there are no 80 yr olds who are going to take jobs as health aides whose whole job is help 80 yr olds.

I think if you've only ever known UMC and UC people working cushy white collar jobs, you may not understand how this really works. But who cleaned your granpa's house? Who mowed his lawn? Who *build* his house? Who built the roads he drove on? Who taught his kids to read? Who took his blood pressure at the doctor's office?

Think. We aren't facing a shortage of corporate executives here.

PP. You are being unnecessarily insulting. There are quite a lot of middle-class white collar workers. And pensions are going away so people don't get the automatic income they used to.

Regarding your rhetorical questions. My grandpa didn't move between the ages of about 50 and 94. He mowed his own lawn using a lawn tractor. And did a lot of home maintenance himself.

I have another relative, not so fancy but a bit of a layabout, who went to work as a care provider at an old folks home in his late 60s/early 70s because he still needed to earn some social security credits at that advanced age. He was able to perform that work.

I've run across a lot of older physicians lately. Meaning boomer-ish who look like they could retire if they want to (60s plus).

My elderly parents just had their chimney rebuilt and the main mason looked extremely old. But he was spry and did a good job. He had a younger man with him. Older people can retain a lot of muscle and dexterity if they are active their whole lives.

My kids have a sub at their school that is extremely old from their perspective. Possibly in her 80s. A famously-beloved elementary teacher just retired after 50! years of service. So she was at least 72.

My point is that people will come back into jobs if they need or want the money. No, they can't do every job.

Heck, I myself am wondering if when I'm old if I could be a nanny to a professional family. It seems like being a grandma babysitter could be worth at least $40K a year or more to a highly-compensated professional couple. "Household managers" even more.

It's not just UMC people's jobs that could continue to be done.

The concept of retirement was invented. It's not entirely natural.

No one wants your old butt as a nanny or house manager
Who the hell will be able to afford either once republicans are done killing jobs and the economy??

I disagree. It's quite hard in my area to find a reliable, highly-educated, legally-here young woman with full-day availability whom you would trust to drive your kids around town. And currently older people don't need to bother because they have pensions and Social Security. Or veterans' benefits. My grandma's senior living community was full of Silent Generation and Boomer people who were supporting themselves mainly with those kind of payments. But Gen-X doesn't often have that setup.

No matter what, there are always rich people. Rich Republicans will ensure that rich Republicans remain. No matter how hard you culminate. There are still rich people in Europe and Japan.

Distribution of wealth explains a lot if you actually look at it. Wealth in the US has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands in the US since the policies of Reagan started this trend in the 80s. Ignore the importance of wealth at your peril. Some will always be wealthier and some will always be poorer. But in the past, the CEO might have made 15 times what the lowest paid worker made and now it's more like 300 times more:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/21/ceo-worker-salaries

Wealth has been concentrated but not fewer and fewer people. Wealth has been concerntrated in more and more people. The Top 20% ia wealthy. The top 50% plus are doing great.