You can have a billion dollars worth of shares in amazon, hell you can have a billion dollars in cash. It isn't going to wipe your ass in a nursing home. Someone young will. If the people who do the work are downtrodden enough why would they bother participating in your scheme?

This is the one thing people seem to forget; people who work in places like nursing homes rarely do so because they have a dream of wiping old people's asses for a living. Instead, they do it because they need the money.

In a society where there are plenty of other well-paying jobs to be had, working at a nursing home won't be the popular choice. I expect the future to be interesting.

Some people have vocation for taking care of the old and the sick. Yes, they do it for the money, but they could have chosen something else, and yet they chose nursing because to them it is rewarding. Job satisfaction and doing good things for others are very important indicators for happiness.

Definitely. The people who want to work in nursing homes are probably outnumbered by the people that have to, however, and once the others leave, others will too, simply because the job will become unbearable. Combine that with increased numbers of retirees and fewer potential employees, and things could turn ugly real fast.

Personally, I'm preparing for a future where a nursing home isn't an option. Just in case.

Someone clearly hasn't seen what a healthy lifestyle can do for you: https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/why-japans-ok...

It's common to equate old age with nursing homes and misery in the West.

Other cultures show that this needn't be the case at all and is - for the most part; there's still about 30% genetics involved - dependent on how you chose to spend your days. Less Netflix, Facebook, and convenience food, more exercise and healthy, non-processed food can get you much further than a billion dollars and medical personnel...

If an 80 year old no longer contributes to society, and all they have is pieces of paper indicating they used to contribute in the past, they are relying on people who do contribute (by fixing toilets, growing food whatever) to accept those pieces of paper. They will only do so if they feel they are getting enough of those pieces of paper, and if they will believe those pieces of paper will work in the future.

The health of that 80 year old is only relavent in terms of the amount of resources needed to move from the working class to the non-working class. The healther the aged, the fewer the resources. The higher the working:retired ratio, the fewer the resources.

What is to stop the adults under say 50 who have barely any capital at all (401ks, houses, shares, whatever) from saying "screw this, I'm off to $other_country where I don't live hand to mouth and have no future of retirement"

A country can not survive when 90% of its population are 80 years old, no matter how healthy or rich those people are, it means for every 10 hours an under-80 works, 9 hours is to produce goods and services for other people.

Goods and services do move across borders, though. A single country’s economy doesn’t exist in a sealed bottle. Those pieces of paper can be traded for foreign goods and services.

Now if the whole world was 90% elderly you might have a point.

That's the whole point of the article - immigration is no longer the solution, the ratio of working:retired is falling.

The issue is that large numbers of people, organizations, and governments have assumed a forever swelling population in their retirement plans. So, yes, like any time in history there will be individuals who haven't saved enough to retire. The issue is that a demographic contraction throws the large majority of retirees into crippling poverty, absent government intervention that allocates capital investment and workers' consumption toward retirees' consumption.

Obviously a forever swelling population is not model we can or should try to sustain, but reaching some kind of replacement-level equilibrium is sustainable and is much healthier for workers' and retirees' economic health.

Majority of working people live paycheck to paycheck, earning enough to pay for rent, food, and maybe a few beers on a friday night.

Any extra money from pay rises goes into spiraling rent costs cause by extra money from pay rises, which goes to those who own the rentable assets.

There is more than enough housing to go round. There is more than enough food to go round. There's more than enough beer to go round. Yet there are people working 100 hours a week sweeping floors that can barely pay for it.

There have to be better ways to distribute what's being generated (which is almost entirely from those ages 20-65) among the population without disenfranchising increasing numbers of those that actually do the work

Without a population at least being more or less constant, there is essentially no way at all that the average person can retire.

Why? Because if we all start saving enough to retire without relying on growth, then that has a deletrious impact on the economy that makes retirement even more difficult.

This is because no matter how much paper you have, you still need people to grow food, build houses and run services once you retire. If there are more retirees than working people, you're in deep trouble. The average person simply won't be able to retire, ever.