There are other solutions of course, like automation. With technology we can do more work on less time, and that is something we have done since the industrial revolution. It is a bit bizarre that on technology forum this is not go-to answer.

Automation will put more money into the pockets of people who own the companies, IP and capital. Everyone else did not get much from it for a while and got more and more burden of education to work in that automated workplaces shifted on them.

> It is a bit bizarre that on technology forum this is not go-to answer.

Automation is more likely to add rent-seeking to the status quo than improve conditions for society.

Because the technology is not ready yet

That would require productivity growth, which requires investment and training, rather than profit extraction from cash cows.

The West has got very used to living off cash cows.

The other option is to invest abroad, and repatriate the profit. Which is something else Japan has done, the Chinese are doing, and the West seems to have forgotten how to do.

>The other option is to invest abroad, and repatriate the profit.

In other words, colonialism. I wouldn't say the West "has forgotten"; they are still extremely good at it with careful financial engineering, they can operate it without looking like slave drivers.

The problem is there is only so many places you can invest and the west has burned enough bridges where any sovereign nation is incredibly careful when taking money from the west.

  > Why can't we make economy work with less working people per retiree?

we can make any kind of economy we want (its a human invention after all) which then makes the answer a lot more political (there are many intertwining interests that don't want/cant change)

Economics is not a human invention. It is a discovery, a study of the feedback mechanisms that lead to certain distributions of resources. When you pretend otherwise you get mass famine.

  > It is a discovery, a study of the feedback mechanisms that lead to certain distributions of resources.

and who makes those feedback mechanisms? are you saying that property rights and other rules of trade are not human inventions?

They're naturally occurring.

We usually try to create rules of trade and property rights that prevent things like famine and violent conflict. This is because certain sets of rules would inevitably lead to these things. What rules produce the most stability and health are not known, figuring those out is a process of discovery, it is not up to people which rules work and which rules don't because what actually works with regard to distribution of resources depends on how the natural world works.

  > what actually works with regard to distribution of resources 

isnt economics much more than just distribution of resources? and distribution to what end? "what works" largely depends on what your trying to achieve, no?

for example, we could say that china is doing economics much better than the west (growing faster, better infrastructure, better education, more dynamism etc), if you wanted to say "what works" but im not sure most people here would want to follow that path...

i feel there is an inherent political aspect that arises in economics that is being ignored... but maybe im just crazy?

Economics is not more than just the distribution of resources, no. The goal is to have efficient distribution of resources so that people can have the things they need within their means if possible, and to find new ways to process resources to produce things that make peoples lives better.

What works is largely about what you're trying to achieve, which is why when you see people trying to achieve things other than what I said, you wind up with mass famine, forced migration, shortages, and unnecessary expense. You see these things because they're not trying to avoid these things, they have other goals in mind.

There is a political aspect to economics, in that those who want to siphon resources away from efficient distribution and towards their goals will use political machinery to coerce a population. You see this in many instances, ranging from holodomor to artificially inflated drug prices in the US.

The economic problem Japan faces is temporary while the demographic change from immigration would be permanent. It makes sense that the Japanese are avoiding it.