US, EU, even China and India. Regardless where you are, the economy sucks, housing is not affordable, prices are high, jobs are stagnant and class mobility is nonexistent (except maybe in China).
US, EU, even China and India. Regardless where you are, the economy sucks, housing is not affordable, prices are high, jobs are stagnant and class mobility is nonexistent (except maybe in China).
part of the reason is no one has a solution to the massive increase in elderly people due to modern medicine.
the longer they live the more of a problem they are on the social security side of a given nation, and the reason why population growth keeps on getting pushed regardless of country.
solution: richer people get slightly less treats (possibly), put un/underutilized labor into better work. don’t fall for dependency ratio propaganda.
also, this isn’t because of elderly people, most third world countries, including India have young populations who are un/underemployed, instead of improving the productive forces and material conditions, their labor is being wasted. they will get old, stay poor and the country won’t be able to utilize its ‘demographic dividend’.
hence why i mentioned part. unless we consider countries like china lib now, they are faced with the same problem.
i do agree that theres a massive missmanagement of labor hemce why I only said it was part of the problem. not THE problem.
They are practicing Socialism with Chinese characters. Those Chinese characteristics are an adherence to the neo-liberal model set in motion by Nixon and codified under Reagan and Clinton. It basically means that while they do follow a neoliberal model of finance, as opposed to Marxist, they are also willing to exert far more direct productive control over the bourgeois in their nation.
In the U.S. the government gives money to companies and banks that it needs to do well for the sake of the nation, but does not gain a share of the control over the investment, instead opting to exert it’s power over the populace through an ever increasingly complicated and yet shrinking, policy of regulations and tax codes. They are essentially attempting to manage the company from outside the company. The Chinese state on the other hand has controlling shares of companies, particularly the inherent monopolies, that it gives money to, in addition to that regulatory regime, which is much similar to how the U.S. operated in the 50’s, it then also uses that money for massive infrastructure and educational projects.
So China are libs, which is why they are experiencing the problems that they are experiencing, but they, unlike the U.S., have a possible ideological off-ramp from neoliberal finance that currently is holds some degree of power over the bourgeois they can take.
The question is will they be able to recognize it and use it, or if they themselves are dogmatic adherents to the tenants. Basically, are they truly practicing Dengist socialist theory, or have they converted themselves purely towards neoliberal economics.
The problem is sound finance neoliberal mindset.
China doesn’t face a demographic crisis in the way many think even in its present form. It can even reverse some of the birth rate decline if it pushes up wages, guarantees employment and puts a cap on working hours.
You are pinning something that may happen decades from now as an excuse for unemployment and wasted resources today.
Does “saving” money by allowing unemployment help mobilize Healthcare resources in the future? No. In fact it does the opposite. Real resources cannot be transferred across time by “saving” money. People get older, demographics change as time passes and austerity only hurts in this regard.
Then why are government workers at some point going around asking woman to get pregnant, I understand that its possible for them to push up wages and lower working hours, but the current situation doesn’t all point to that direction (im aware of them trying to cut down and enforce the removal of 996, however effective or not it may be)
China has the opportunity to as you said, just pay them more, but they haven’t quite yet done so.
I’m saying what should be done. Calling asking women to get pregnant is analogous to YIMBYs calling for just building more homes, a very micro “solution” to a macro level issue. It is very much linked to growth for growth sake attitude.
Free childcare, guaranteed employment, fixed hours, labor protections is how you fix declining fertility. Do all this not focusing on fertility rates but because it’s the right thing to do for workers.
no one has a solution to [problem with obvious solution]
yup, it’s libbin’ time
This is wildly incorrect. If it was that case then we would not see the amount of young person unemployment. You would expect to see full youth employment and elder care falling through the cracks due to a lack of availability of labor. This simply isn’t the case.
Again the reason for this is that capitalism ideologically justifies itself by claiming that it creates efficiency by concentrating productive forces into the hands of fewer and fewer ‘productive’ individuals. However, all that means in practice is that unless you are some kind of born genius, capital will not invest time and money into you, and even then, you have to be born to the correct family with the correct connections to recognize that genius.
It is a form of economic eugenics.
This, coupled with the fact that financial capital is much easier to generate than real productive capital, means that wealth will continue to be concentrated into the hands of the financial markets and the few industries that facilitate them. A bare bones structure will be kept in place to trade around, but their ideal scenario is them trading a closed briefcase back and forth, speculating on what is inside the briefcase, but never opening it up, forever.
“kill the elderly” isn’t the clever solution you think it is
Death camps are the solution to the useless eaters. You are straight spouting Nazi ideology. Before the green revolution something like 90% the population was involved in food production now it is less than 20 but yet somehow we still cannot care for our elders because we lack workers?
its not lack of workers, rather its usually work that not many like to go into. Its for example sorta like trucking. It ends up requiring a specific kind of lifestyle in order to get people who want to be in the position. Back then, people would have more time at home so elderly care would be a family thing. That has slowly started to shift away overtime as core families are more likely now to not be in the same household as back then. There’s a lot of aspects to it.
Your first post says it is a lack of workers and we have no solution to that. Now you say there are plenty of workers.
im not saying theres plenty of workers at all, its not a desireable job. the labour still exists, its just divided unevenly because some jobs are way more desirable than others